Here are the websites I check almost daily. Count on them to provide news on the hottest environmental innovation, policy or happenings:
TreeHugger.com - THE source for all of my enviro technology, political and events news. Despite its name, it is realistic in nature and resourceful in its data sources - I'm just reading an article now on bacteria that detect landmines
Inhabitat.com - How design will save the world
Appropedia - The Wikipedia of appropriate (many of them green!) Technologies
Would highly recommend that you check out all of the above and check back often, or subscribe to them
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Use Precaution for the Precautionary Principle
Today I had a great meeting with Dr. Philip Jessop, a green chemistry professor at Queen's University whose research is playing a major role in the greening of the chemical industry.
During the discussion, a real gem of a though emerged; how the precautionary principle (PP for short), though well intended, does not make sense in many circumstances. The PP is defined as (borrowed from wikipedia):
A moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
To roughly translate: if there is a risk of something bad happening as the result of an action, don't do it.
When I was first introduced to this in the context of environmental science class, it made perfect sense. For instance, if we had played it safe with DDT and not used it, a lot more birds would be spared dead due to ultra-thin eggshells and reproductive failures. If the Ukraine had never built a nuclear reactor, they never would have had the Chernobyl disaster. These are two well-known cases in reference to which the PP has merit.
However, what about a caesarean section? As my mother can attest, getting one of these entails a HUGE risk with guaranteed harm. I was an oversized baby and if my mother followed the precautionary principle, it is a likely possibility that only one of us would be around today. However, as a result of taking the risk, we are alive and well. The absurdity of the precautionary principle in certain situations can be applied to countless daily experiences; if I walk outside, I might get hit by a bus and therefore I should stay inside; if I use a sharp knife to cook dinner, I might lose a finger and therefore should cut my carrots with karate chops only.
Applied this to business scenario and we soon see real economic costs of blind adherence to this principle. If a product is almost guaranteed to make a profit, is it wise financial sense that it be withheld if there is uncertainty on its environmental effects? Well, I would venture a guess that it would depend on the product; releasing a new toothbrush design on the market is far less dangerous than releasing a new nuclear reactor.
In short, don't fall onto the precautionary principle as a panacea, it should be used judiciously and after a cost-benefit analysis.
During the discussion, a real gem of a though emerged; how the precautionary principle (PP for short), though well intended, does not make sense in many circumstances. The PP is defined as (borrowed from wikipedia):
A moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
To roughly translate: if there is a risk of something bad happening as the result of an action, don't do it.
When I was first introduced to this in the context of environmental science class, it made perfect sense. For instance, if we had played it safe with DDT and not used it, a lot more birds would be spared dead due to ultra-thin eggshells and reproductive failures. If the Ukraine had never built a nuclear reactor, they never would have had the Chernobyl disaster. These are two well-known cases in reference to which the PP has merit.
However, what about a caesarean section? As my mother can attest, getting one of these entails a HUGE risk with guaranteed harm. I was an oversized baby and if my mother followed the precautionary principle, it is a likely possibility that only one of us would be around today. However, as a result of taking the risk, we are alive and well. The absurdity of the precautionary principle in certain situations can be applied to countless daily experiences; if I walk outside, I might get hit by a bus and therefore I should stay inside; if I use a sharp knife to cook dinner, I might lose a finger and therefore should cut my carrots with karate chops only.
Applied this to business scenario and we soon see real economic costs of blind adherence to this principle. If a product is almost guaranteed to make a profit, is it wise financial sense that it be withheld if there is uncertainty on its environmental effects? Well, I would venture a guess that it would depend on the product; releasing a new toothbrush design on the market is far less dangerous than releasing a new nuclear reactor.
In short, don't fall onto the precautionary principle as a panacea, it should be used judiciously and after a cost-benefit analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)