The Precautionary Principle

One of the most promising and important environmental ideas to emerge in recent years is something called the Precautionary Principle, a revolutionary new philosophy with the potential to become an ecological silver bullet for the 21st century.

The Precautionary Principle was created in 1998 at a landmark meeting of scientists, government officials, lawyers, labor activists and grass-roots environmental leaders at a conference center in Racine, Wisconsin. Unlike most proposed solutions to our current environmental challenges, it was developed not in response to any specific issue but as a universal answer to the general mindset that many feel is largely responsible for environmental problems in the first place. Here’s what it says in part:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."

Behind these words lies a simple rule each of us uses everyday: Look before you leap and proceed cautiously if you decide to take the plunge. On the face of it, that’s hardly a revolutionary idea. What is unique about the Precautionary Principle, however, is the fact that it runs so contrary to America’s traditional regulatory approach to pollution and other environmentally harmful activities. Historically, regulators have allowed companies and individuals to "shoot first and ask questions later." They’ve assumed that any given activity is problem-free until someone steps forward (usually after the fact) with proof that a problem exists. This innocent until proven guilty strategy naturally tends to favor commercial interests over public health and creates a system that places an unfair and often prohibitively expensive burden on the public, which must definitively prove that something is dangerous before governmental action will be taken to stop it.

Given the large number of widespread environmental troubles we’re currently experiencing, it’s clear that such an approach simply doesn’t work. The Precautionary Principle replaces this faulty reasoning with simple logic that says it’s far safer, simpler, and more preferable to prevent a mess in the first place than it is to clean one up after it’s been made. When any doubt whatsoever exists about whether or not a proposed human activity might cause environmental degradation of any kind now or in the future, we must err on the side of caution, and ask that those who seek to engage in that activity to refrain until they themselves can prove to the satisfaction of government agencies and the people alike that it’s thoroughly safe to proceed.