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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please also read:
Be Very Cautious of the Precautionary Principle
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/temperate-facts/the-precautionary-principle
Thanks.
Charles,
Nice analogy! : )
In the case of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), PP only applies to the effects of those changes to our environment.
The consensus for ACC is solid. To say it isn’t is just ignoring the wealth of evidence in support of ACC. To those who say ACC isn’t real, I can only suggest either educating yourself better, or trust the experts – over 95% agree that ACC is real. To ignore the issue altogether is just being irresponsible.
The degree and timing of the effects of ACC are still under study. How we address these effects is where the PP is applied.
Regardless of dooms-day scenarios of rising ocean levels, there are measurable effects that can be extrapolated to near-term problems for humanity. For example, the melting of glaciers that are the primary sources of water for many people is not in dispute. We can only surmise what will happen when those people run out of drinking water. What would you do if you ran out of drinking water?
PP is so much of a concern, the military is taking action to plan for the effects of ACC.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9580815
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html
So, don’t confuse the reality of ACC with its possible effects. The former is not in dispute, but the latter is not fully understood.
But…reintroducing wolves in a grazed forest is asking for trouble. It will create an unbalanced system if sheep and cattle are still present (easier to catch so deer and elk herds keep growing). Wolves and cougars were removed in order to graze domestic herds. Deer and elk were killed at-will when fresh meat was needed so over population by deer and elk were controlled (IE hunting taking the place of the wolves and cougars in the chain). So balance was maintained. However, re-introducing wolves and limiting cougar kill throws the system out of whack again as long as domestic stock are present. So either the domestic stock and their protectors are removed or the protectors should be allowed to harvest at will. And that means at-will kill of both predator and deer/elk.
The PP is not even Pascal’s Wager. In Pascal’s Wager, there’s an upside either way. The PP just says that you have to buy insurance, which is an expense. And often you hear one of the two arguments in favor of carbon caps:
1) “What’s wrong with clean air”?
2) This will reduce oil imports, so will be an economic benefit.
The first on is just vapid, and the second one is false, especially in the coal-rich US.
We’re not so fortunate as to this being a Pascal’s Wager “win-win” situation.
If someone tries to argue using the precautionary principle, the best response is to beat them with their own stick.
The “catastrophe” scenario they envision is a rise in sea level that pushes back the shoreline. Because they are using the precautionary principle, arguments about this scenario’s low probability are disallowed. Still, you should make this argument so as to set the hook. When they cite the precautionary principle as trumping the low probability argument, you are ready to spring the trap.
Their disaster scenario pales when compared to an ice age. Losing half of FL is nothing compared to glaciers knocking Toronto, Chicago and New York flat.
Surely they will respond with some claim about how that is unlikely. Then you can frustrate them with their own principle. Unlikeliness is an argument they just ruled out. We need more CO2 to help prevent an ice age. And, based on geological history, one is coming sooner or later unless we can stop it.
QED
Last paragraph, typo on the word – the?
“…think it is teh eeeevil…”
Or perhaps just remove “teh” completely as unnecessary?
I agree with Willis’ article, which gives as good a description of the precautionary principle that I have read. One problem we are dealing with is the enormous chasm that exists between what PP actually is and the public perception of it. Willis’ article is similar to those written by Monckton and Lomborg and we definately need more of this sort of thing in the public forum. The public need to understand that what is being proposed is not only not precautionary principle, but its very opposite.
I believe though, that policy makers and rent seekers know very well this point but pursue these policies for different reasons. The need to control, tax and subvert democracy have been discussed often enough so I won’t go over them again. However, is should be clearly seen that any appeals to reason made to these vested interests will fall on deaf ears.
Willis & Anthony,
Thanks for bringing in the New Year with this great post.
In past few weeks on WUWT I have noticed more articles, like this one of yours, that are really touching on the philosophical (world view) differences between the AGW advocates and the mostly skeptical climate thinkers. I think it would be interesting to pursue an idea such as: it is the philosophy of Plato ( and all his historical & current derivatives ) that is most consistently aligned to the base of an AGW advocate world view. On the other hand, the skeptical position seems to be much more consistently aligned to the Aristotelian world view.
Philosophy is a fundamental science in the Aristotelian world view, at least it was at the time of Aristotle. So, a post on this may not be totally OT on a science blog like WUWT.
I’d love to see a post on this.
John
AGW is only one possible threat to human existence and life on this planet.
The money and other resources to deal with all dangers known and potential are limited.
There is only so much human effort that can be expended to deal with any and all of them.
To my mind a proper precautionary principle would rank threats and place efforts where the greatest likely hood of improvement or minimization of loss could be expected.
What have we accomplished if we fixate on CO2 if some equal or greater but ignored threat whacks us on the head in the mean time?
Great post, Willis. Thanks.
Typo alert:
“they solve a real program today…”
should be:
“they solve a real problem today…”
The precautionary prinicple (PP) lies within the realm of decision analysis. In the real world, some actions must be taken under uncertain risks. The PP is simply a vague, non-mathematical statement of this reality, specialized to decisions about environmental hazards.
It would be well if the United Nations could make a rational decision on an action to take in light of the putative hazard of carbon dioxide emissions. Which action should it take from among the inumerable possibilities?
Economists tend to favor use of expected utility theory. Under this theory, that action is taken which is of greatest expected utility.
In order for expected utility theory to be implemented, a model must be available that forecasts the probabilities of the various possible outcomes, given the current state of the system under study. In this respect, the IPCC process has thus far failed us, for while the IPCC models make “projections,” they make no forecasts. Thus, though political leaders are under the impression that they can and should take action, a rational basis for taking action does not exist.
That political leaders are under the impression that a rational basis for taking action does exist seems to result from confusion of a forecast with a projection. The IPCC should have made it clear to political leaders that a “projection” is different from a forecast, that forecasts are what political leaders need to take action and that a forecasting model does not exist. Rather than highlight this shortcoming for political leaders, the IPCC’s 2007 report obfuscates it.
A month ago, I wrote to the Chair of the IPCC, R.K. Pauchari, with the recommendation that this shortcoming be highlighted to political leaders in advance of the Copenhagen Conference. He did not respond.
That a forecasting model does not exist when there is a requirement for one to exist and that action is being taken on the basis of confusion of projections with forecasts demonstrates the dysfunctionality of: a) the IPCC, b) the leadership of the world program in climatological research and c) the process by which the world program in climatological research is formulated. It seems to me that we are well past the time at which reform in all of these areas was needed.
1. An asteroid hit is A threat of serious or irreversible damage.
2) A hit is scientifically certain, only the timing has A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).
3) Interception/deflection is, possibly, an available cost-effective measure that we know will prevent the problem. The Russians seem to be volunteering their services, though perhaps for a potential space weapon advantage.
So the PP fits this threat far better than it does AGW
Put simply, the absence of economic growth in poorer countries will result in more human misery and early death than the presence of anthropomorphic warmth.
Physicist Serge Galam -a pioneer in sociophysics- view on the PP is very critical: applied outside of specifically defined boundaries, the PP can lead to true totalitarism. Imagine, using PP, someone is arrested because he COULD act in someway contrary to the State’s interest…
Yes, but working on localized no-regrets actions doesn’t have much opportunity to fund a world-wide totalitarian government that will line corrupt bureaucrats pockets. Therefore, such an approach is uninteresting to almost everybody.
I agree w/ Pamela Gray–I live in an area where cougars, wolves, and grizzlies have been introduced all around and it has created a big problem. Better to strive for a balance than some artifical ecosystem imposed by bureaucrats.
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a small beautiful pond, in a glade, by the forest. In this pond lived 10 happy, frolicking frogs and many fat, tasty flies.
One particular cold morning, one vocal frog noticed a mist rising from the surface of the pond. He immediately cried “Wake up! Wake up! You sleepy frogs. The pond is beginning to boil!” he shouted in alarm.
All the other frogs rubbed their eyes in amazement, for indeed, there was steam rising from the pond.
Quickly they held a meeting and came to a consensus. Yes! The pond was indeed beginning to boil. The steam was plain to see. One old frog tried to object, but was shouted down by the rest! Emergency plans for pond evacuation were quickly implemented, and the frogs left the pond.
Nine of the frogs were gobbled up by snakes and birds. The last frog managed to escape the ravenous predators, but was caught in the opening, by the noon sun… which dried him to a pretzel and he… CROAKED.
And so the flies, lived happily… ever after.
The End. by GK
Stefan (04:26:45) :
Good post, well thought through.
There is no single response, in any direction, to the ever growing ‘world view’, that will set a marker point that all can, or will, agree with.
Taking a couple the prime concerns for all of us, no matter what our persuasion on AGW/ACC.
Species extinction.
There is nothing new here (it has always been the case) EXCEPT some sort of human belief that we have an option to control what comes or stays and what goes.
Why is it acceptable (Indeed is it acceptable?) to support virus destruction whilst camaigning for the rights of .
Availability of core resources.
Or, from another persepective, do we use or hibernate those things we find usful?
We know how useful coal is. We know how useful Oil is.
The chances of the entire population of the world deciding to skip the benefits of those two resources (among many) is small.
So be it. If they offer a source of energy that allows humanity to move to another level of existence, fine. If they don’t and humanity fails to find a way forward, so what? That’s evolution. The planet survives, species develop (or don’t develop) and ‘the ecology’ moves to the next level.]
The only real threat to ‘man’ and ‘man’s’ ‘progress’ is, currently, self belief and in the long term, correct identification of what helps ‘mankind’ progress and what holds ‘mankind’ back.
‘Mankind’s’ forward predictions have, in the main, been poor. There is no reason, so far as I can ascertain, to assume that the last few years has improved mankind’s predictive capability.
On which basis the only real threat to anything substantial and existential is to humanity – which really does not matter to much in a long view of the survivability of ‘the planet’ within the cosmos.
.
Some thoughts on the precautionary principle:
http://climatereflections.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-precautionary-principle-a-precautionary-note/
Stefan (04:26:45) : wrote:
>>>Then there is the “deep ecology” view. As far as I understand this (not that I’ve made a study of it), deep ecology is a perspective from “outside”, gazing at the planet as a “blue marble” in space. When viewed from this perspective, there is just “the whole” and it can even seem spiritual; The One, The Way, Unity, God, etc. From this perspective, humanity is just one species, one part of the intricate and homeostatic whole, and the whole is more important than any part. Consider, what does this do to our “cost-benefit” analysis in the Precautionary Principle?
“The cost to multiple species, so serious a cost that they are threatened with extinction, is far greater than the cost to one species—to limit their own numbers—and this limit should be imposed even if there is insuffiecient data to determine when and how these multiple extinctions might occur.”
This can be applied at multiple scales. Consider the cost of eating tuna fish, where overfishing damages multiple ocean species, when you could just eat carrots. Or consider the cost of having three children, when the whole planet is heading into a virtually certain cataclysm when one day, things just run out. It really doesn’t matter when or how. It doesn’t matter if we manage to invent new technology that gives us another boost, just like the green revolution gave us a boost in the 60s. All that led to was increasing numbers, as we keep having kids, rather than stopping and being satisfied with our place in the ecosystem. >>>
Well, if what they say is true, about multiple catastrophes happening because of Global Warming and excess population, then that takes care of the excess population right there doesn’t it? I’m not being mean, don’t get all emotional on me, I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic. Do they actually have a computer model that shows a reduction in CO2 would cause a reduction in births? Ha, ha. I think an increase in condoms would be more cost effective. : )
Communism, socialism, fascism, tyranny, and other forms of authoritarianism are a KNOWN hazard to human health and happiness. The track record is 100% failure, catastrophic failure, and mass tragedy.
Therefore the most precautionary and rational action would be to reject authoritarianism in all its various guises. Starting with the UN and working down.
r (11:00:29) :
“Well, if what they say is true, about multiple catastrophes happening because of Global Warming and excess population, then that takes care of the excess population right there doesn’t it? I’m not being mean, don’t get all emotional on me, I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic. Do they actually have a computer model that shows a reduction in CO2 would cause a reduction in births? Ha, ha. I think an increase in condoms would be more cost effective. : )”
————-
I get the impression that AGW is simply a convenient propaganda/religion they are spewing which is quite contrary to their base belief that the world is actually on the verge of another glacial epoch so the occasional catastrophe, compared to the wide distribution of people, is insufficient to reduce the earth’s population to the level supportable by an ice-encrusted Earth. But if they can turn off power plants so people freeze to death, increase taxes and government control so people can’t afford nutritious food and necessary medicines resulting in many deaths, and control CO2 and all aspects of agriculture so people starve to death, those policies preserve resources and mothballs infrastructure that become available to them when the ice really hits the fan. They simply don’t want anybody but their elite group around with which to compete, for they aren’t survivors when competition gets intense, nor are they nice people in general. No, they are criminals for their policies include mass genocide. (Those two terms would normally be redundant, but on the scale they’re taking it, I think not.)
I can’t see where all this AGW baloney benefits anybody but them.
The same pressure is being applied to health care here in the US, and I can tell you, as a licensed health insurance agent, what they’re proposing is going to make health care more expensive and less beneficial–there are far better ways of solving the problems but they aren’t interested because it goes against their philosophy and would actually resolve the problems. Why would they do that? It’s simple–they want control of all aspects of our lives so when push comes to shove, everybody but them gets pushed off. That’s the only conclusion I can logically derive.
But I think they’ve underestimated the average Joe.
Ben (08:59:37) : edit
“Teh” is a satirical spelling of “the”, so common that it has its own Wikipedia entry.
Dev (09:47:57) : edit
Fixed, thanks.
New Years Day, my best wishes to all for the new decade.
w.
Since the “Precautionary Principle” is in play here, the views of Cass Sunstein (Obama’s Regulatory Czar) may be worth considering:
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing precaution to the wind: Why the ‘safe’ choice can be dangerous.” boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind.
Main point: “Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
…
“In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks – including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
…
“The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle.”
Sunstein, Cass R. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
“This is a book about the complex relationship between fear, danger, and the law. Cass Sunstein looks afresh at the precautionary principle, and at the idea that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are uncertain and even if we do not know that harms are likely to come to fruition. However Professor Sunstein argues that in its strongest forms the precautionary principle is both incoherent and potentially paralysing, as risks exist on all sides of social situations, and he demonstrates that in practice such a principle can only operate because different cultures focus on different risks, and that there is no ‘general’ precautionary principle as such. This is a very important insight for the contemporary world, and Laws of Fear represents a major statement from one of the most influential political and legal theorists writing today.”
Notes:
Adopted Broadly (Pg 17)
“In February 2000, the Precautionary Principle was explicitly adopted in a communication by the European Commission, together with implementing guidelines. The Precautionary Principal even appears in the draft Constitution for the European Union….”
Pg 35, #1: Availability Heuristic:
“making some risks seem especially likely to come to fruition whether or not they actually are;”
Pg 35, #2: Probability Neglect:
“…leading people to focus on the worst case, even if it is highly improbable:”
Pg 35, #3: Loss Aversion:
“… making people dislike losses from the status quo;”
Pg 35, #4: Benevolence of Nature:
“a belief in the benevolence of nature, making man-made decisions and processes seem especially suspect;”
Pg 35, #5: System Neglect:
“… understood as a inability to see that risks are part of systems, and that interventions into those systems can create risks of their own.”
On-Line:
Sunstein, Cass R. Beyond The Precautionary Principle. Working Paper #38. Public Law and Legal Theory. University of Chicago, January 2003.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/38.crs.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf.