For today’s “What Could Possibly Go Right?” Carolyn Raffensperger brings her perspective as an environmental lawyer and Executive Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network.
Europe’s precautionary principle is being challenged in the name of innovation. What might at first seem like a battle of words could, however, have profound impacts on the future of food and farming in the UK, across Europe and beyond.
The phrase “Precautionary Principle” is not even included in the index of Energy, much less discussed. Rhodes’ approach suggests a “Throw-caution-to-the-wind Principle.”
In the wake of declining political will for environmental protection, many in the environmental community are advocating for the monetization of nature.
It is a staple of apologists for the chemical and fossil fuel industries to say, "We have no proof that what you are talking about is dangerous." Let me restate that in probabilistic terms: "We are highly uncertain about the harm of what you are talking about."
The non-natural needs to prove its benefits, not the natural. This principle is the clearest expression of the precautionary principle I’ve ever seen, and it is even more stringent.
A recent poll conducted by the Civil Society Institute (CSI) and the Environmental Working Group found that the vast majority of Americans favor more political leadership when balancing domestic energy production with protecting people and the environment. This poll is interesting on many levels, primarily because of the overwhelming percentages of constituents who want more protections. But one aspect stood out because it is an argument heard over and over again from the oil and gas industry. It revolves around the precautionary principle.