3 ms·
So, basically, the Precautionary Principle [1] "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has
by Jedd 11y ago
So, basically, the Precautionary Principle [1]
"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action."
Perfectly sound, perfectly logical, and the basis of (much the same as you) the argument I present when I find people who either don't understand, or disagree with (a subset of not understanding?) the science.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- vlehto 11y agoHere is Lindybeige using that argument to justify why you should hop on one foot, and ban football. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R999ZLlSdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R999ZLlSdI But I agree that in general it's good principle. For climate change it's not that applicable. It's easy to show that burning oil is good for the economy. It's difficult to show that it's bad for the climate. If we say that Shell needs to show some proof that burning oil is overall good two things will happen: 1. Shell forges bullshit. 2. Everybody keeps burning oil just like today until there is some kind of replacement. Just for practical reasons. So then it goes to "why we need to invest money to the alternatives". And then that precautionary principle could be applied to that investment. TL;DR You need to show fossil fuels are bad, for practical reasons.