|
Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm Strong formulations of the precautionary principle, without regard to its most basic provisions that it is to be applied only where risks are potentially high AND not easily calculable, applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, may rule out its own use.[14]:26ff The reason suggested is that preventing innovation from coming to market means that only current technology may be used, and current technology itself may cause harm or leave needs unmet; there is a risk of causing harm by blocking innovation.[21][22] As Michael Crichton wrote in his novel, State of Fear: "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle."[23] For example, forbidding nuclear power plants based on concerns about risk means continuing to rely on power plants that burn fossil fuels, which continue to release greenhouse gases.[14]:27 In another example, the Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act are an example of the Precautionary Principle where the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless. Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide a higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.[24] Blocking innovation and progress generally Because applications of strong formulations of the PP can be used to block innovation, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.[25][26]:201 The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries.[27] Vagueness and plausibility The PP calls for action in the face of scientific uncertainty, but some formulations do not specify the minimal threshold of plausibility of risk that acts as a “triggering” condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle.[28][29] In Sancho vs. DOE, Helen Gillmor, Senior District Judge, wrote in a dismissal of Wagner's lawsuit which included a popular[30] worry that the LHC could cause "destruction of the earth" by a black hole: Injury in fact requires some “credible threat of harm.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2002). At most, Wagner has alleged that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (the “Collider”) have “potential adverse consequences.” Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 970.[31] |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:57 , Processed in 0.529759 second(s), 16 queries .
