CefTon

A pre-cautionary tale

& 8

By Jeff Hammersmark

fter some feedback from the

Other Press staff, as well as

some personal reflection, I will
this week begin to guide this column in a
new direction. As I said last week, I am
not a scientist. Since I do not (yet) have
the credentials, authority or reputation to
make any science-related claims without
referencing, I will be writing hereafter on
the assumption that readers of my column
will take it upon themselves to access the
massive amounts of available information
on the topic at hand, and form their own
opinions.

That brings us to today’s topic,
something called the “precautionary
principle”. Wikipedia describes it as
stating “if an action or policy has a
suspected risk or causes harm to the
public or the environment, in the absence
of scientific consensus that the action or
policy is harmful, the burden of proof that
it is not harmful falls on those taking the
action.”

A good example of this is Canada’s
action on Bisphenol-A, or BPA. This
is the substance found in many plastic
products, as well as in the lining of many
canned foods, that Canada recently
declared toxic and banned in baby bottles.

12

Some studies argue that BPA in products
are Causing us harm, and others say that
the levels we are exposed to are safe.
Canada, whether it is conscious of it or
not, has used the precautionary principle
to declare BPA toxic, and has started

to ban it from certain products. What
Canada has basically said is even though
there is no scientific consensus that BPA
is harmful, since those that produce and
utilize BPA cannot prove that it is not, we
cannot allow it to be an ingredient in baby
bottles.

When it comes to the environment,
specifically climate change, the heart of
this principle is easy to apply in that we
should not be using a lack of scientific
consensus as an excuse not to take steps
to prevent it. 1 would argue that there
is absolutely a scientific consensus on
climate change, and that it is primarily
interest groups and industries that want
you to believe otherwise. For argument’s
sake though, let’s say there is no
consensus.

On one side, we have people saying
if we do not change our ways, the Earth
will warm at geologically lightning
fast speeds, global sea levels will rise,
desertification will become rampant, and
so on. On the other side, we have people
either saying that this will not happen, or

that it will happen, but humans are not
causing it. The precautionary principle
tells us that it makes more sense to take

action against even the chance of climate
change panning out as predicted, rather
than to claim there is no consensus and
therefore do nothing. If we do nothing,
there is a chance we could run into serious
trouble and have done nothing to stop

it. If we take action, we could prevent
something very bad from happening, and
even if we were wrong and the action was
not required to stop climate change, at
least Manhattan is not underwater.

If someone wanted to play devil’s
advocate, they could claim that the
precautionary principle can be used
to argue against action to stop climate
change. Some proposed methods of
action would make major changes to
the economy, which some argue could
potentially cause dramatic negative
effects on society. That is a fair use of
the principle, but there is only so much
that we can do as individuals that would
allow us to stay true to the principle,
while effecting real change. The sum of
individual actions can be substantial, and
that is independent of any major changes
to the economy. Who is it going to hurt if
you recycle, buy locally grown produce,
walk to the store instead of drive, or eat a

 

little less meat?

When it comes to industry, simply
working to become more efficient in
the workplace or using fewer natural
resources where possible can have a
huge impact. Reducing office paper
consumption, and using the money saved
to buy partly or fully recycled paper
won’t bring the economy to a crashing
halt, but it will save a lot of trees, and
keep demand for recycled products up (a
good example of how individual actions
can trickle up and effect change at higher
levels). Right here at the college, we’ve
surely saved a huge number of trees
since we implemented our double-sided
printing policy.

Many people are saying that
immediate and dramatic action is needed
to stop climate change, but until society at
its highest levels comes to an uncontested
consensus on climate change, what harm
will it do for you to do everything you
comfortably can to reduce your personal
environmental footprint? The worst that
can happen is that you’ll tread a little
lighter on the planet, possibly even save
some money, and in some cases, improve
your health and well being. Not a bad deal
for being precautionary.