Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

Breakable 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”.
…

Such “aid” has a proven and totally predictable history of ending up mostly monetized in the pockets of the local Big Man and Friends. Further, it takes many years for such initiatives to reach any sizable portion of the population. Meanwhile, they start dying. Theoretically, at some point the declining surviving population curve meets the slowly rising “delivered aid” curve and things stabilize.

But even such a Machiavellian approach misses the point. The “harm” that was predicted to be done by the CO2 generation prevented was minuscule by comparison with the death its prevention causes.

Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.