The precautionary principle is:
Actions should be taken to prevent damage to the environment even in cases where there is no absolute proof of a causal link between emissions or activity and detrimental environmental effect. Embedded in this is the notion that there should be a reversal of the "burden of proof" whereby the onus is now on the operator to prove that his action will not cause harm rather than on the environment to prove that harm (is occurring or) will occur.
In other words, should those who wish to introduce a new chemical, a new industrial process, a land-use change, and so on, have to demonstrate that their change will not harm the environment before proceeding?
QUESTION: Do you accept or reject the precautionary principle? Explain and defend your answer. Examples are always good.
I think that we should reject it because it is not good for the earth. Chemical are bad for animal in this world.
ReplyDeleteIn my beliefs, the best way to keep our environment safe, is through The Precautionary Principle. If you think about it, our environment doesn't need any more unnecessary chemicals that have a slight chance of "possibly" not contaminating the earth. The Precautionary Principle is very simple towards the fact that you only need to show the world that you are not going to pollute the earth. Some business owners might have mixed reactions towards this because it won't allow for them to freely do want they want to do, but now they know what the guidelines are in order to not contaminate the earth. For example, when the BP oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, people didn't believe it was an accident and neither do I. I personally feel that the people on board should have checked all the equipment to make sure that everything was going to be fine. I sincerely believe that if the men on board would have done this, the oil spill would have never happened.
ReplyDeleteI do accept with the precautionary principle, because of the fact that our earth does not need to be introduce to a new chemical, a new industrial process, and cut down anymore trees than what we do already. I like the fact how it should be demonstrated to certain people identifying that it will not cause any harm, or change the environment before proceeding. One example for the precautionary principle is the Food and Drug Administration requires all new drugs to be tested before they are put on the market. So as much as I like my food I do want to make sure it is tested to be good to eat, as for the drugs I would say its good to be tested so that we know what side affects occur and how much is the right amount to take.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should be a law for land uses and chemical uses because it isn't fair that only certain people decide that there is a need for these items, but what about the rest of the people? What about OUR opinions as a society? Are they useless? People mainly only use land for factories and this causes too much pollutions to our environment. Maybe we can build more farms and build more crops instead of taking them down. Chemicals threaten the life of us humans. Why would we want people to cut our oxygen? Using chemicals basically means the same thing. We should stop this abomination and we should ALL stand and speak up! I think it's for OUR best and these types of desicions shouldn't be based on your ranking in life.
ReplyDeleteYes I do accept this principle because it could make a drastic change to the environment for both wildlife and humans because we would produce less chemicals. Hopefully destroy less land and habitats that animals live. This would allow their population to grow and develop to their surroundings and help regenerate the population of endangered animals.
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the precautionary principle because it insures that the environment isn't harmed by companies or chemicals that are newly made. This also protects the life forms, mainly humans, that may reside in the industry''s vicinity. Chemicals can run into the water, the crops or the live stock and pollute them. Since we consume all of these things we might fall ill or worse die out. So, I believe the precautionary principle is a really important part of the preservation of our environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the precautionary principle is needed, because without it anyone can cause damage to the environment. If people want to introduce a new chemical that will help stop anything, but damages something else, what good is it? For example, if someone invents a chemical that kills mice to avoid having an invasion on the crops of farmers that is good. However, if it kills nutrients needed for crops to grow then what good is it?
ReplyDelete