Resolved: The precautionary principle ought to guide environmental regulations

Temporary Stabilization

Yes

Allows for temporary stabilization while research continues

• By using the PP to guide environemental regulations, a more effective cure to the problem can be found, rather than just going with whatever is available at the time (what "problem" are you referring to?)
• Allows for better choice making: encourages planning based on goals, not on risk calculation that may all be wrong anyway.

No

This would only be true when invoking the principle would mean preventing a change in the status quo from taking place and when the status quo was stable. Suppose, however, that in an effort to provide much needed electricity to a pure rural population, a government decides to erect a hydro-electric plant alongside a river. Failure to provide the electricity would result in prolonged poverty for the population and social unrest would likely continue. Invoking the precautionary principle could delay the much needed construction project.

Another example is global warming. The precautionary principle would seem to require immediate and dramatic increase in environmental regulations, which could have dramatic destabilizing effect on economies throughout the world.

Economic Arguments

Yes

It is easier to figure out how much the precautionary princple will cost then what costs of future catastrophes might be.

No

There's no support this claim provided. However, even assuming the claim were true, why is it important and how does it prove the resolution false? Suppose what we find out is that the cost of applying the precautionary principle would be astronomically high.

Yes

Shifts financial responsibility to those who can bear it (explain)

No

How so? How would this "shift" take place? Wouldn't the precautionary principle be applied in developing countries?

Yes

Creates more jobs (Environemtally friendly corporations make room for more people to work, Ends up benefiting not just natural environement but social one – more people have work)

No

Applying the precautionary principle could limit economic growth in the short run. There's no proof offered that there will be more jobs created were regulations imposed than if they were not. If applying the precuationary principle would increase economic growth and create new jobs, then how to explain the fact that the business community almost always reacts negatively whenever governments attempt to increase environmental regulatoins.

Costs of Inaction

Yes

1c: The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. Inaction not only results in economic losses but it also results in a limitation of basic human rights, such as life. Ex: “A Dutch calculation estimated that if the Netherlands had banned asbestos in 1965, when the evidence first suggested a link with mesothelioma, instead of in 1993, the country would have been spared 34,000 victims and 41 billion guilders (about $20 billion) in building and compensation costs. (EEA 2001) Though the financial burdens at the time may seem too great for the agent to bear, inaction will only result in a greater financial burden that grows over time. “The costs of preventive actions are usually tangible, clearly allocated and often short term, whereas the costs of failing to act are less tangible, less clearly distributed and usually longer term, posing particular problems of governance.“

No

Hindsight may be twenty-twenty. How many important innovations would have been prevented had the precuaitonary principle been invoked to delay or prevent their implementation? There is always risk involved with the unknown and while we can admit that we should be careful in the risks that are taken with the environment, the precautionary principle would prevent societies from taking action absent complete certainty. This is too high a threshold.

Yes

2c: The Precautionary Principle is necessary Sub point a) Precaution is necessary b/c of the changing world Ex : 6 billion people plus inhabit the planet, mid-level estimates predict 9-10 billion by mid-21st century. (Source?)

Would need 2 and a half more earths to support pop. If used half as many resources as Americans Though this is just a prediction, it is based off of scientific evidence and If it were to come true then we would be on a lot of trouble so it is necessary to take precaution to protect ourselves from extreme potential harm. (Source?)

B) We may never be able to establish full scientific evidence for certain causes. The precautionary principle suggest taking action before there is full scientific evidence of harm, though this may be seen as a problem with many issues (pertaining to environmental regulations) full scientific proof is unattainable.

Example: endocrine disruption, climate change, cancer, and the disappearance of species are rarely linked to a specific cause. (Source)

If you are never able to make this link then no action is ever taken and the problem continues to grow worse. “Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or confounding factors are unidentified.”

C) Current methods of preventing the environment from harm are not sufficient Quantitative Risk assessment is the main method for determining harmful side effects for products technologies + development projects. (Source?)

What is risk assessment? 1. present numbers to show how much harm might occur

2. policy makers decide how much harm is acceptable.

Major flaw: doesn’t search for alternatives that would reduce risk Used by : United States in the mid-1980s, global trade agreements of the 1990s Ex: used risk assessment to create an estimate of how many kids would die after playing with toys that release a poorly understood level of toxicity, policy makers decide how many kids they can kill and get away with instead of looking for alternatives. Risk assessment doesn’t work when the stakes are high (death of unknown number of people). “ its like asking how much harm can we tolerate instead of how much harm can we avoid?”

Sub point D)The PP is necessary when dealing with environmental harms because the harm it attempts to prevent is often irreversible.

Look at what happened when we didn’t use the Precautionary Principle report by the European Environment Agency in 2001 studied when we didn’t apply PP

Radiation, ozone depletion, asbestos, Mad Cow disease, and other case studies show a familiar pattern: conclusion of report : Didn’t apply PP prevented action from being taken, caused irreversible harm. Money can always be gained back, the ozone layer can’t.

No

Yes

3c) The PP increases public participation, therefore letting the people control their own destiny The PP is beneficial to the general public. Since the PP looks to the public to decide wat constitutes arm decisions are then made by those who might suffer the harm( the general public)

No

There's no support offered for th claim that the precautionary principle will increase public participation in the regulatory process. However, even assuming this could be proven true, why is increased participation in this case a good thing. When it comes to highly technical issues, like those that often surround moves to protect the environment, reliance on experts and experienced policy makers would probably produce better public policy than appeals to the wisdom of the masses. See Cass Sunstein on the problems inherent to rely on the wisdom of the masses.

Yes

4c) The PP is beneficial to corporations It is better for businesses to apply the precautionary principle because if they fail to and end up causing harm they look bad and they inturn receive a horrible reputation and loose customers. June 2001 Verizon issued statement warning against excess cell phone use in children, said the cause was the PP. They realize that it is beneficial for the to apply the precautionary principle because they appear as if they care and protect themselves from law suits in the future ect.

No

Yes

5c) The precautionary principle allows for temporary stabilization while other research can be continued Though the precautionary principle is applied when the risk factor is not certain it allows for more research to be done in a stable environment so there is no chance of drastic harm to be done.

No

Argument #4

Yes

In issues like the environment, changes such as extinction of species and deforestation are irreversible and will disrupt the ecosystem, leading to more instability. Caution from the start will produce better effects overall. If action is taken, it is much more likely that positive changes will occur, rather than when it is too late to make a change.

No

Argument #5

Yes

Human influence on the planet is increasing more than ever. Humans have such a huge presence in the world that we cannot completely avoid affecting it, i.e. damaging it. However, the more we use the precautionary principle, the less damage we will end up doing because we will have taken necessary measures to prevent serious harm.

No

Argument #6

Yes

The precautionary principle allows for temporary stability while alternatives are looked for. Instead of jumping into a policy with both feet in the water, the precautionary principle allows society to poke around a little bit and still have some stability. Society can then take advantage of this stability and search for safer alternatives to a policy that will both lead to new technology and an alternative that does less damage to the environment.

No

The assumption that stability is the norm and that the precautionary principle preserve is questionable. However, even assuming this unsupported claim were true, since in most cases, invoking the precautoinary principle would mean increasing regulation, thus altering the status quo, the precautionary principle may produce more rather than less stability. For instance, the precautionary principle would seem to suggest that we immediately limit the use of fossil fuel, which would mean a dramatic change in the status quo.

Argument #7

Yes

Other options that test social effects of new policies / products are not valid. The most common alternative is a process known as risk assessment. However, in risk assessment, consequences as serious as death are allowed to occur. For example, if a new chemical that may have deadly effects when inhaled but makes perfumes smell wonderful is put in perfumes to test its effects, many people may lose their lives because the government / perfume company did not want to waste their time effectively researching the new chemical.

No

Argument #1

Yes

The precautionary principle is not a scientifically valid principle because its whole basis is a lack of scientific evidence. There is no science involved in the precautionary principle; rather, the entire principle of it is based completely on lack of science.

No

Response.

Argument #2

Yes

Other options that test the effects of environmental regulations are more effective, such as risk assessment. Risk assessment, albeit more hands-on and therefore more likely to result in lives being harmed in the short term, is in the long run more effective because hard science is involved and real results are given.

No

Argument #3

Yes

Requiring policies to be proved safe could stifle innovation. This is because with no research or application, nothing can be confirmed to be true or certain. Therefore, the precautionary principle in its strictest sense will always be standing in the way of progress and innovation.

No

Argument #4

Yes

No