Hi everyone,
I know we've had some interest in the "precautionary principle" on
this list in the past (see e.g.,
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0005&L=enviroethics&P=R2602&I=-3
and subsequent postings), so I'd like to get list members' thoughts
about the application of the precautionary principle in other areas
of public policy.
Ordinarily I would not consider the Iraq war controversy to be a
suitable topic for this list, but recent postings by David Orton and
others have inspired me to look into the subject more deeply.
The following article explictly links the use of the precautionary
principle by environmentalists in environmental policy and by the
U.S. government in its current policies towards Iraq, and I'll
include a brief excerpt to give a flavor of the whole article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taylor111502.asp
Taking Environmentalists Seriously
Risks.
By Jerry Taylor & Peter VanDoren
"What if we were to discover tomorrow that a dangerous
environmental pollutant was lurking about that was capable of killing
millions with little warning and at a moment's notice? What if the
best experts were divided about the risk-some saying it posed a
1-in-5 chance of triggering such a calamity while others argued that
the chances are more like 1-in-500? What if some argued that the risk
was immediate while others contended that, for various reasons, the
risk wouldn't present itself for at least a few years? And what if
some worried that the cost of doing something about this pollutant
could perhaps prove more costly than leaving the threat unattended,
while others argued that this end of the calculation was highly
uncertain and that the risks of acting ranged from great to
negligible?
"Would environmentalists argue that we need to learn more about this
risk before acting? Almost certainly not. It's safe to say that
environmentalists would argue that 'the precautionary principle'
demands that, in the face of uncertainty, we assume the worst about
this threat.
"Environmentalists have, after all, vigorously crusaded against
environmental health risks that range as high as 1-in-1-million and
have been willing to spend several billions of dollars to save one
statistical life. They have, moreover, militantly opposed any
requirement that environmental risk reduction efforts be subjected to
cost-benefit or risk-risk analyses. So it's probably safe to say that
the Greens would launch the political equivalent of a holy war
against this environmental pollutant.
"Would they be right to do so? Well, substitute the phrase
'environmental pollutant' with the phrase 'Saddam Hussein' and you've
actually got a reasonably fair depiction of the debate about whether
the United States should preemptively strike Iraq to prevent
chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons from falling into al
Qaeda's hands."
Jim again:
A quick search on the web turns up other places where people have
connected environmentalists' precautionary arguments with the
pro-Iraq war arguments, e.g., "Precaution goes to war," by Joe
Kaplinsky at http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D986.htm .
Kaplinsky argues "[t]he risk-averse morality embodied in the
precautionary principle is highly unstable and irrational" and asks,
"How long before we have a 'precautionary war' in Iraq, or somewhere
else?"
Because I am interested in the logic of the arguments used on behalf
of the precautionary principle I am curious to hear any thoughts
people might have either on these articles in particular or on the
use of the precautionary principle to justify war more generally.
Thanks in advance.
Jim T.
--
Jim Tantillo
Department of Natural Resources
8-A Fernow Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
phone: 607-255-0704
fax: 607-254-2299
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/people/staff/profiles/tantillo.html
We must laugh and philosophize at the same time. --Epicurus
|
