Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable wrote:

Ignorance is thinking that something less than the precautionary principle can protect the public.

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. The risk is that an over zealous or under-informed application of it could do more harm than good.

Can we agree on a definition of the precautionary principle? You seem to like Wikipedia – their current definition;

“The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”

I quote this “as is” without prejudice but I can work with it for now if you will.

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.

Does you(sic) experience suggests that lobbying and corruption cannot tilt any decision towards business interests where there is no clear cut boundary? Lets imagine a softening of Precautionary principle : “precautionary approach”. So now government can decide if economic costs are larger than public benefit. Basically inflating economic costs (which cannot be verified), can prevent any action.

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.”