 Political contexts and controversies  Definition and sources of the precautionary principle (or precautionary approach)  Problems and questions  Operationalizing and implementing precaution 9/26/11ESPP-78 1

 “ 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) 9/26/11ESPP-78 2

 Europeans are from Venus...  They believe in precaution.  Precaution means when in doubt, don ’ t act.  This explains European resistance to GM crops, for example.  Americans are from Mars...  We believe in risk.  I.e., uncertainty can be assessed scientifically.  You act when benefits outweigh risks. 9/26/11ESPP-78 3

9/26/11ESPP-78 4

 “ 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, /26/11ESPP-78 5

9/26/11ESPP-78 6

 “ 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  Principle is applicable “where the scientific data are insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain; [and] where a preliminary scientific evaluation shows that potentially dangerous effects for the environment and human, animal or plant health can reasonably be feared. ”  EU communication of February /26/11ESPP-78 7

 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 on the European Union (1992) 9/26/11ESPP-78 8

 All agencies of the Federal Government  Must conduct for “every major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment ”  An “environmental impact statement ” (EIS)  Setting forth: ▪ (i) unavoidable adverse environmental effects ▪ (ii) alternatives to the proposed action  With public consultation 9/26/11ESPP-78 9

 Combines two kinds of ought (Jasanoff, 2003)  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. 9/26/11ESPP-78 10

 In environmental protection, is the moral ought identical with the prudential ought?  Put differently,  Are we morally obliged to protect the environment only when we assuredly know the probability of harm?  Is there a moral obligation to act even when we don ’ t know enough to justify prudential action? 9/26/11ESPP-78 11

 Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principle should be, inter alia:  proportional to the chosen level of protection,  non-discriminatory in their application,  consistent with similar measures already taken,  based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action (including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefit analysis),  subject to review, in the light of new scientific data, and  capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scien tific evidence necessary for a more comprehensive risk assessment.  See, e.g., Foster et al. Science (2000). 9/26/11ESPP-78 12

9/26/11ESPP-78 13

 Precaution is often viewed as blocking or inaction.  But precaution can be seen as a positive mandate (Gee and Stirling, 2003):  Explore alternatives to proposed activity.  Do more research before approving activity.  Place burden of proof on proponent of activity.  Use more democratic processes, including right to know and informed consent.  Combine with “polluter pays principle.”  Pay attention to responsibility as well as risk. 9/26/11ESPP-78 14