Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
I would argue that knowledge is something more than the precautionary principle. I would have to further argue that there is as yet little evidence that the precautionary principle has protected the public.

I would not argue with you on that. Maybe there is some evidence, I did not look for it, but the evidence that I saw here is clearly tainted with bias. Still if you want evidence then you are welcome in the world of science. The best evidence comes (I think) from controlled experiments. I hope it is out of the question to reproduce some scenarios that the precautionary principle should prevent?
So what is left is data gathering from historical events and simulations which are hard to reconcile with reality as the GW issue well describes. Do you think such uncertain data is any better than the random choice or the blind precautionary principle?

Phil’s Dad wrote:
…
On another thread I pointed out that more people are dying each year in Africa right now, directly or indirectly from lack of affordable energy, than the worst case predictions say will be harmed by AGW 100 years from now. Yet there are still those who would restrict growth in energy provision in that continent.
If we apply the precautionary principle to the policy of restricting energy provision where it is so desperately needed – and with the associated and undeniable risk of immediate and continued harm to those peoples – then the burden of proof that no harm will come of it lies firmly with those proposing the restrictions. I am clear in my mind that it is not being applied in that way and is not therefore protecting the public.

Yes energy is an issue in Africa, but GW is an issue as well. So now a country in Africa is building a coal plant somewhere inside. Should they consider “Precautionary principle” – I think it is their business on what principles they rely. On the other hand if a country like USA want to interfere in foreign interest I think they should apply their own principles.
Now lets say a different scenario USA sponsors international AID to an African country – a concentrated solar power plant or PV panels for rural homes, a gas power station, wind-belt generators for lighting or maybe a FF plant someday. Should they apply their own principles? Probably they should.
So I guess the question is : can you use “Precautionary principle” for evil? I think it is possible, but much harder than “Precautionary approach”.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
I have no experience of corruption but a great deal (on the receiving end) of lobbying. On the whole it serves to inform decision makers of the opinions and stake-holding of the various groups affected by the decision. That is a good thing surely, as long as care is taken to ensure all voices are heard. Far better to make an informed decision that to exist in some sort of unapproachable bubble.
It is however a fact that governments are already free, under the precautionary principle as defined above, to behave in the way you suggest. Economic mismanagement can and does lead to every bit as much harm to the public as other factors. It is therefore perfectly legitimate, rather than the extreme view that one factor outweighs all others, to weigh those economic and other factors against each other and come to a compromise which is in the best overall public interest. As you said in another thread – “actually I think any extreme is usually bad.”

I am not saying all Lobbying is evil, just that Lobbying can be often unsymmetrical and that makes it bad. If you have a well supported group on one hand and uninformed public on the other how can you find some middle ground? Especially when there would be no mandate to protect the public, but just to prove that it can be uneconomical.
Basically what I see here is “Economic mismanagement” issue vs “Safety of population” issue. Yes probably wasting the funds is pretty bad, but how can you evaluate the cost of even one human life? It is around 195,946.00 usd. I expect a discount if calculating in bulk.