1. 10/6/08ESPP-781 Outline Why care about the precautionary principle? Political contexts and controversies Definition and sources of the precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) Ways of implementing precaution Problems and questions

2. 10/6/08ESPP-782 Politics of Precaution: International “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.” –Robert Kagan (2003)

3. 10/6/08ESPP-783 Risk vs. Precaution: The Great Transatlantic Divide Europeans are from Venus... –They believe in precaution. –Precaution means when in doubt, don’t act. –This explains European resistance to GM crops. Americans are from Mars... –We believe in risk. –I.e., uncertainty can be assessed scientifically. –And you act when benefits outweigh risks.

4. 10/6/08ESPP-784 Politics of Precaution at Home “Soft Green is the Green of the invisible, the Green of the highly- dispersed or the far future.... To the Soft Green the model is everything,” because it is only in models, not in reality, that the harm it fears and promises to evade seems real. It is this Soft Green that frets over dioxin and global warming, over MTBE and pesticides, over phantom and faraway risks. Soft Green is exemplified in its most politically dangerous form these days by the so-called Precautionary Principle, an idea rising in intellectual and political prominence among the enviro-left which says that no action or technological breakthrough that cannot be proven to be without long-term or unexpected deleterious consequence should be allowed to be adopted. This sort of Green fights new advances in biotech and simultaneously wants to ban the pesticides that biotech could do away with, without causing diminution in the quality or quantity of human foodstuffs. –B. Doherty, American Spectator, 2000

5. 10/6/08ESPP-785 “Unknown Unknowns” “As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” »Donald Rumsfeld (2002)

6. 10/6/08ESPP-786 Meaning of Precaution “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” »Wingspread Conference 1998

7. 10/6/08ESPP-787 Sources of the “Precautionary Principle” German environmental law (Vorsorgeprinzip) Rio Declaration (1992), Principle 15 –“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Maastricht Treaty of the European Union Sources in US law: NEPA? –Requires prior impact analysis, but no necessary action.

8. 10/6/08ESPP-788 Making sense of Precaution Combines two kinds of ought -- but how? –The prudential ought: You should carry an umbrella when it’s raining. You should control pollution that endangers health or the environment. –The moral ought: A physician should do no harm to a patient. People should do no harm to the environment.

9. 10/6/08ESPP-789 The Big Question for Policy In environmental protection, is the moral ought identical with the prudential ought? Put differently, –Are we obliged to protect the environment only when we know the probability of harm? –Is there a moral obligation to act even when we don’t know enough to justify prudential action?

10. 10/6/08ESPP-7810 Implementing the Precautionary Principle Precaution is often viewed as inaction. But there are intermediate options: –Explore alternatives to proposed activity. –Do more research before approving activity. –Place burden of proof on proponent of activity. –Use more democratic procedures, including right to know and informed consent. –Combine with “polluter pays principle.” –Pay attention to responsibility as well as risk.

11. 10/6/08ESPP-7811 Some problems with Precaution How certain do we have to be (about the unknown) before triggering a moral ought? When and how should we “force” science rather than act on current knowledge (NAPAP)? Whose responsibility is it to gather information? Should environmental precaution be favored over economic production? When? Who should settle disagreements on above points?