Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
One of the arguments frequently applied to the climate debate is that the “Precautionary Principle” requires that we take action to reduce CO2. However, this is a misunderstanding of the Precautionary Principle, which means something very different from the kind of caution that makes us carry an umbrella when rain threatens. Some people are taking the Precautionary Principle way too far …
Figure 1. Umbrella Exhibiting an Excess of Precaution
The nature of the Precautionary Principle is widely misunderstood. Let me start with the birth of the Precautionary Principle (I’ll call it PP for short), which comes from the United Nations Rio de Janeiro Declaration on the Environment (1992). Here’s their original formulation:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
This is an excellent statement of the PP, as it distinguishes it from such things as carrying umbrellas, denying bank loans, approving the Kyoto Protocol, invading Afghanistan, or using seat belts.
The three key parts of the PP (emphasis mine) are:
1) A threat of serious or irreversible damage.
2) A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).
3) The availability of cost-effective measures that we know will prevent the problem.
Here are some examples of how these key parts of the PP work out in practice.
We have full scientific certainty that seat belts save lives, and that using an umbrella keeps us dry. Thus, using them is not an example of the PP, it is simply acting reasonably on principles about which we are scientifically certain.
There are no scientific principles or evidence that we can apply to the question of invading Afghanistan, so we cannot apply the PP there either.
Bank loans are neither serious nor irreversible, nor is there partial scientific understanding of them, so they don’t qualify for the PP.
The Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable. The PP can be thought of as a kind of insurance policy. No one would pay $200,000 for an insurance policy if the payoff in case of an accident were only $20, yet this is the kind of ratio of cost to payoff that the Kyoto Protocol involves. Even its proponents say that if the states involved met their targets, it would only reduce the temperature by a tenth of a degree in fifty years … not a good risk/reward ratio.
Finally, consider CO2. The claim is that in fifty years, we’ll be sorry if we don’t stop producing CO2 now. However, we don’t know whether CO2 will cause any damage at all in fifty years, much less whether it will cause serious or irreversible damage. We have very little evidence that CO2 will cause “dangerous” warming other than fanciful forecasts from untested, unverified, unvalidated climate models which have not been subjected to software quality assurance of any kind. We have no evidence that a warmer world is a worse world, it might be a better world. The proposed remedies are estimated to cost on the order of a trillion dollars a year … hardly cost effective under any analysis. Nor do we have any certainty whether the proposed remedies will prevent the projected problem. So cutting CO2 fails to qualify for the PP under all three of the criteria.
On the other side of the equation, a good example of when we should definitely use the PP involves local extinction. We have fairly good scientific understanding that removing a top predator from a local ecosystem badly screws things up. Kill the mountain lions, and the deer go wild, then the plants are overgrazed, then the ground erodes, insect populations are unbalanced, and so on down the line.
Now, if we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that removing the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to avoid removing the top predator, the PP says that we should do so. It fulfils the three requirements of the PP — there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists, so we should act.
Because I hold these views about the inapplicability of the precautionary principle to CO2, I am often accused of not wanting to do anything about a possible threat. People say I’m ignoring something which could cause problems in the future. This is not the case. I do not advocate inaction. I advocate the use of “no-regrets” actions in response to this kind of possible danger.
The rule of the no-regrets approach is very simple — do things that will provide real, immediate, low-cost, tangible benefits whether or not the threat is real. That way you won’t regret your actions.
Here are some examples of no-regrets responses to the predicted threats of CO2. In Peru, the slums up on the hillside above Lima are very dry, which is a problem that is supposed to get worse if the world warms. In response to the problem, people are installing “fog nets“. These nets capture water from the fog, providing fresh water to the villagers.
In India’s Ladakh region, they have the same problem, lack of water. So they have started building “artificial glaciers“.These are low-cost shallow ponds where they divert the water during the winter. The water freezes, and is slowly released as the “glacier” melts over the course of the following growing season.
These are the best type of response to a possible threat from CO2. They are inexpensive, they solve a real problem today rather than a half century from now, and they are aimed at the poor of the world.
These responses also reveal what I call the “dirty secret” of the “we’re all gonna die in fifty years from CO2” crowd. The dirty secret of their forecasts of massive impending doom is that all of the threatened catastrophes they warn us about are here already.
All the different types of climate-related destruction that people are so worried will happen in fifty years are happening today. Droughts? We got ’em. Floods? There’s plenty. Rising sea levels? Check. Insect borne diseases? Which ones would you like? Tornados and extreme storms? We get them all the time. People dying of starvation? How many do you want? All the Biblical Plagues of Egypt? Would you like flies with that?
Forget about what will happen in fifty years. Every possible climate catastrophe is happening now, and has been for centuries.
So if you are truly interested in those problems, do something about them today. Contribute to organizations developing salt resistant crops. Put money into teaching traditional drought resisting measures in Africa. Support the use of micro-hydroelectric plants for village energy. The possibilities are endless.
That way, whether or not the doomsayers are right about what will happen in fifty years, both then and now people will be better prepared and more able to confront the problems caused by the unpleasant vagaries of climate. Fighting to reduce CO2 is hugely expensive, has been totally unsuccessful to date, will be very damaging to the lives of the poorest people, and has no certainty of bringing the promised results. This is a very bad combination.
Me, I don’t think CO2 will cause those doomsday scenarios. But that’s just me, I’ve been wrong before. If you do care about CO2 and think it is teh eeeevil, you should be out promoting your favorite no-regrets option. Because whether or not CO2 is a danger as people claim, if you do that you can be sure that you are not just pouring money down a bottomless hole with very poor odds of success. That’s the real Precautionary Principle.
The PP is a restatement of the Pascal Wager, which is a binary bet on god’s existence. The flaw in the Pascal Wager is that there is more than one god worshipped. So even if i buy the argument, i do not know if to follow allah, the hindu gods, christ, zeus, etc.
The PP issue is that we have at least 3 outcomes, which are an Ice Age, Interglacial, or Global Warming. Actions to reduce CO2 levels would make an ice age worse.
The precautionary principle as it has been included in the Lisbon treaty is nothing more but an insurance policy for the continuation of the destructive policies and tax scams, even when the science says otherwise.
In the real world it’s called bad policies, very bad policies and we must hold our politicians accountable for those policies.
If we don’t, we will pay a very high price.
Thanks for the article Willis and Anthony thanks for posting it.
For those who don´t know (thanks to the “New Age”, post-modern, education):
-Carbon dioxide it is no black, it is a transparent gas.
-Carbon dioxide is the gas we exhale (aproximately 900 grams per day)
-Carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) is what the plants breath.
-Carbon dioxide it is the element out of which plants make carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose) with water using the light energy from the sun.
-If we remove Carbon dioxide there won´t exist your underwear or your pant or skirts, so you would walk totally nude, before going extint, because, my dear babies, sons and daughter of the supreme moron, “Al Baby”,
-We, humans, are made of carbon, water and nitrogen, and if one of the elements of this mix lacks, you lack baby!
Willis, you wouldn’t mind doing another article on the other problems in the Rio and related texts, would yout? I’ve tried to read and understand the consequenses of UNFCCC’s Text of the Conventiont for a while now, and it just keeps getting worse.. Thank you for this one!
@ur momisugly Dave F (22:56:25)
Let’s just hope it isn’t cursed and carry one away like Mary Poppins 😉
There are a number of problems with the Precautionary Principle, or the “better safe than sorry” approach to control and regulation. As explained by the author above, PP works well when risk/reward can be measured. But we can see what happens when activists apply PP to the things they do not like: technological or medical advancement, people’s behaviour, etc. Since the PP excludes the requirement of “full scientific certainty” (whatever the heck that is – let’s call it objectivity), rules can be imposed by politicos who listen to those activists with the loudest, most emotional arguments. In other words, it all becomes subjective at best, superstitious at worst.
Adding to the “Precautionary Principle” post above we should also think about the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”
See the following here from the WSJ relating to biofuels:
And in another example
here
These kinds of issues will simply multiply as the world fumbles about with an experiment never before carried out: adjusting Earth’s thermostat.
Do the alarmists think that the world will have any will or resources left to fight other real environmental problems when so much effort is suddenly switched to drastically reducing CO2?
Interesting snippet here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Instead I would suggest to apply the Precautionary Principle to those individuals or institutions which pretend knowingly or unknowingly, purportedly or unpurportedly, innocently or maliciously, to diminish the amount of CO2, because it is a proven fact what the lack of carbon dioxide would cause to life on earth, and so directly and gravely affecting human life, human activities,etc. implicitly representing a serious violation of the human rights.
As someone pointed out, the PP is essentially Pascals Wager, which in itself is only consistent if the deity involved is the vengeful type. It is a wager bound to a set of knowable outcomes. For those who may be wondering: consider the possibility that the deity involved, if they exist, couldn’t care less what you believe.
Personally I think the PP is a crock for the simple reason is that it prevents people doing anymore work on a subject as they can bound it all as ‘within a precautionary principle’. The mistake here is confusing the PP with the Law of Diminishing Returns i.e. you have investigated enough to have a basic but consolidated idea of what is going on so any further investigations into minutae will not give you more valuable insight. The whole CO2 issue is exactly this. People continually parrot on about the basic physics of Co2 radiative properties and so on, and believe that if we know this we can extrapolate to the atmosphere (this is what the original models did). Well the problem is that the atmosphere is a very very complicated system and elements within that system may not have the same effect as they do on their own. The physics becomes more complicated. There can be coupling processes for instance. It’s like saying you understand high temperature superconductivity because you have an understanding of electron conduction processes in crystals. Well to a point yes but then you have to explain why the same conduction process in the material suddenly does something extraordinary on reaching a certain temperature.
The only way to know is to measure and test theories out. The PP prevents people sticking to that path as it assumes that all outcomes are knowable, hence you don’t keep trying to find out in parallel. Richard Lindzen was on Channel 4 interview and he said something very insightful: What do you do if you commit all this money to reducing CO2 (on the basis of a PP), change the world economy beyond repair and find out you were wrong?
Its not the same thing as Pascals Wager. The price of believing is every bit as damaging as not. The only option is to keep trying to improve the knowledge of CO2 radiative processes in a lab or a larger scale simulator, something that all the major climate scientists don’t seem to be doing. Funny that.
The precautionary principle is a particularly virulent aspect of post-modernist science. This was developed by a couple of left-wing philosophers in the 1960s and 1970s and stemmed from the hang-ups that humanities faculties have with science, which appears to them to deal in absolutes. In a nutshell, the normal definition of scientific logic is replaced by a sociological definition of logic, in that one does not test a hypothesis but considers what the effect of a particular scientific speculation has on society. The hypothesis doesn’t need to be rigorous. testable or right, it just has to be raised so that society can respons to it. The precautionary principle is the response in post modern science to an untested hypothesis.
Nice sense of humor.
As far as the concept of insurance goes, you pay a predetermined rate to mitigate a quantifiable risk. Climate risk is not measurable, and the Precautionary Principle is not even a WAG.
The biggest problem mankind has with AGWers is that they control the agenda and refuse to answer questions in real time which might embarrass them.
Perhaps the thing to do is this:
1. Draw up a list of 50 – 100 projects which WILL benefit the poor WITHIN 3 YEARS.
2. Ask the politicians why they aren’t being funded.
3. PROPOSE that they are funded and grants to green lobbyists axed to pay for it.
4. THREATEN them if they try and keep funding their buddies who do nothing.
Ah.
The word THREATEN.
That makes me in the pay of big oil doesn’t it? Or an Al Qa’ida terrorist? Or a person who doesn’t espouse democracy?
Don’t think so.
It says I no longer accept what politicos say, what they do or what they claim they will do.
I wonder how many more feel the same way?
For the people asking about saturation of the absorption band of CO2 – my notes:
keyword is climate sensitivity of CO2.
probably overestimated by IPCC:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/
CO2, Soot, Modeling and Climate Sensitivity
Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2
“The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated, meaning
that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the radiation
at those frequencies.”
And from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/ :
As Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and former NASA scientist,
puts it: “They program climate models so that they are
sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years
with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They then
point to this as ‘proof’ that the CO2 caused the warming,
but this is simply reasoning in a circle.”
in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/
a beautiful graph by Anthony Watts that shows how close we are
to saturation
“we are indeed pretty close to saturation of the response”
Dr. Heinz Hug has said this in the 80ies already.
I found an argument by pro AGW people that says “but in the cold stratosphere the absorption spectrum changes”. As far as i could
find out, yes it does: its less smeared out and more sharp
peaks. Well if its LESS smeared out than that should result in even
LESS absorption in the stratosphere – my thinking.
Lindsay H
Rather than read Gavins ramblings on co2 have a look at Slocums vey elegant 1955 demolition of Callendars 1938 co2 theory.
http://www.pensee-unique.eu/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
Slocum realised that Callendar had cherry picked co2 measurements in order to demonstrate his theory. Keeling in turn accepted Callendars figures of 300ppm -the rest as they say is history, even though the evidence to the contrary lies in Callendars own archives which are a revealing read.
Tonyb
Truly an excellent article Mr Eschenbach. Bravo!
Going to have to bookmark this one.
I have always thought that the precautionary principle can easily be rebutted by wheeling out the law of unintended consequences.
Willis, Good article. Common sense in action. Thus, not politically correct.
“Would you like flies with that?”
Perfect.
Urban heat island effect is real and measurable. Let’s paint all the parking lots white and plant some trees in parking lots and cities.
The information in these comments is simply astounding, thought-provoking, and a credit to all contributors. However, for many people, form often trumps substance so grammatical and spelling errors often dissuade others from getting the full weight of your comments. May I kindly suggest that after typing your entry, right click in the comment area, “Select All”, hit “Ctrl C” (for copy) and paste (Ctrl V) it in a word processor in which you apply the grammar and spell checker. After correcting, copy it back to your comment space; if you mess up, you still have a copy of it in your word processor. I’m often incapable of finding my own errors, so this procedure has been very beneficial personally, and if applied to your comments, will make them error free and more persuasive.
Religions use the precautionary principle very well (better give 15% of your income to the church in case there is a hell!). Notice though there is no way out if you want to cover all your bets — you can’t give a little to every religion and be covered by all of them. You also can’t ‘just’ be a good person, you have to embrace one and reject the others (in fact, you don’t even have to be a good person in the end).
I think that is where your ideas meet resistance. Being an environmentally ‘good person’ isn’t enough. Helping people already in need isn’t enough. You have to sign on, and you have to view all other acts of goodness as competitors.
Terra Preta satisfies this precautionary principle.
Terra preta, means black earth in Portugese, and refers to the dark black soil in about 10 % of Amazonia, which is now known to have been man made. It is extremely fertile soil, whereas the surrounding natural yellow clay soil is very poor. Scientists have now discovered the reason for terra pretas’ fertility: charcoal. It turns out that the pre-Columbian Amerindians discovered that putting charcoal in the soil traps nutrients and water, and that vast quantities of microorganisms thrive in terra preta. These microorganisms form a symbiotic relationship with plant roots, and carry the charcoal trapped nutrients and moisture to the plant roots.
Once established, (two to three years for optimal microorganism growth) terra preta does not require any further fertilizer, and water usage drops about 15%. Crops can be grown without rotation (forty years in some places), and lands that are otherwise too arid to grow crops, can be used to grow them. Often terra preta yields are double that of conventional farming.
And if CO2 sequestration is your thing, charcoaling plant and animal matter eliminates about 30 % of the carbon in them from retuning to the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years. Some of the terra preta soils are several thousand years old. Plus the gas and oil which is produced in the charcoaling process, can be used for fuel, and the fuel source is sustainable.
Great article and comments, but to me the use of the precautionary principle is yet another dishonest twist by AGW proponents who realise that their central argument is weakening- in precisely the same way as they now prefer to use the term “climate change” rather than Global Warming.
If their science and models are correct, the precautionary principle does not apply: we are headed for disaster and it is imperative that we immediately stop and reverse human produced CO2 emissions.
However, if they are saying that this is merely a matter of precaution, this implies that their science and models are not correct (they cannot have it both ways). If they are not correct, then please point me to the science that requires precaution, unless we should take precaution against every possible eventuality in the world, which i guess would mean we would hide under our beds, hugging our money that we have withdrawn from banks and the market, and never, ever fall in love or make friends because it might break our heart or they might betray us.
Yes, human produced CO2 (and farting cows) just might cause GW (along with multiple other possibilities). The problem is that the science is just not there. The amazing and paranoid machinations of the Climategate “scientists” only reinforce this conclusion (if you doubt me, see http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/).
It is New Year, 2010. Alcohol can produce cirrhosis of the liver, but I drink a toast to you all. Perhaps the miserable AGW zealots are applying the precautionary principle to alcohol this New Year. If they did, they would probably have a better scientific foundation. As a moderate drinker I probably have a far higher chance of dying from cirrhosis of the liver than the world has of warming from human produced CO2.
Cheers everyone. Here’s to 2010: Scientific method. Falsification. Replication. And did i forget something? Oh yes, accountability….
In general the precautionary principle and its variants are the most dangerous of ideas. Dangerous in the sense that right thinking individuals seem completely unable to defend against its onslaught.
Take the example of the War against Iraq. Mr Eschenbach did not talk about the Afghanistan war presumably because it does not come under the realm of science. The case for the Iraq war was not admittedly made on ‘scientific grounds’ but it can still serve as an useful example. The case was made on reasoning, not outright appeal to emotion. Various strands of ‘intelligence’ were woven together. Colin Powell showed ‘physical evidence’ for the existence of WMDs at the UN presentation. Iraq did nothing to provoke aggression. But yet ‘the coalition of willing’ invaded to strike preemptively. We all know what happened next about the WMDs.
To be able to hold back, to not do anything until the precise moment is a valuable thing – in politics and in real life. To not do anything keeps choices alive, keeps the options open, affords valuable time to see if the predictions appear to be shaping up. Preparedness is one thing, decisive action is another.
In general, all the harm that humans do to one another come couched in the precautionary principle.
Look at climate science:
A great science evolves in the past 20 years
The science makes predictions of dramatic change in long range events
These events have transpired in the exact same period the science has evolved.
With all its advances, the science has confirmed findings that were present at the initial stages of its evolution.
The conclusions of this science are that action needs to be taken and it has to be done *now*, no later.
The consequences of inaction are catastrophic.
The proposed actions that need to be taken are irreversible.
All the codified facts of this science consist in models and retrospective data. The retrospective data is not direct measured quantities but reconstructions.
No prospective data can be had because the periods of observation exceed the average productive lifespan of human beings.
No experimentation is possible.
In the face of these limitations, the science has arrived at a level of unprecedented certainty.
And now we are being told that we should undertake global legislative action under a quasi-governmental authority based on the precationary principle applied to the conclusions of such a ‘science. Anyone game?
I find the “lack of clean water” problem in third world countries interesting. My family lives in St. Thomas. Everyone there has a cistern. A cistern is usually a 10’ square concrete holding tank for rain water that is caught off a roof top. I find that I have to explain what a cistern is because most people outside of the islands don’t know what a cistern is. You must have a cistern because there are no lakes, or streams or glaciers on the island.
I am surprised that not more people have cisterns in the states. If you are worried about local pollution you can be in complete control of your own water supply. Of course in the north there is the problem of freezing.
Now, you say, but concrete tanks are expensive! My family originally comes from St. Bart’s. Some of the old time Frenchie’s still live there (quite nicely, I might add) in two room stone houses. Their only water supply are two 18 inch in diameter, 24 inch tall, clay pots collecting rain water from the roof. I must point out that it does not rain much in St. Bart’s either.
How hard is that to implement?
What keeps people going back to dirty rivers? Tradition? Politics? They don’t know what a cistern is? Lack of roofs? It seems most poor people at least have a galvanized tin roof. In St. Thomas most roofs are painted plywood.