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.
Translation: Even if you don't know something will hurt the environment, you should take steps to prevent something like that from happening. It is our responsibility to show that what we do will not hurt the environment, rather than wait for the environment to show that it was harmed.
Do you accept or reject the precautionary principle? 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? Explain and defend your answer.
I do accept the precautionary principle. I believe we should keep the environment in out minds because in the long run if we hurt our environment we will endanger the human race. If we kill our plants and trees then we will have no oxygen to breath. If we pollute our oceans rivers and other bodies of water then we will loose our access to clean water to keep our bodies healthy and hydrated. We will also loose our food source because we will kill our crops and animals if we are not considerate of our environment. So, if we all follow out the precautionary principle than we will save our environment and the human race.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the precautionary principle ,that helps us notice the outcomes and pros & cons of a given source that either helps or hurt the environment around us. Precautionary, meaning taken to advance to protect is highly recommended , I believe so that no further accusations occur and that no one gets hurt by "accidents". Also, saving our environment from the damages we have already will help keep more from coming. So, I think demonstrations today, by scientist will have to show with prior knowledge , no harm will accumulate.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle for various reasons. Common sense dictates that the best way to avoid a catastrophe is by preventing the steps that lead to the catastrophe. So why should we wait for a catastrophe to occur before acting when we could have avoided it completely by taken precautionary steps. It's all really logical; with the precautionary principle not only do you avoid the problem but you also avoid the task of having to clean up the mess. This reminds me of the DDT problem that nearly drove the eagles into extinction, if the makers of DDT had proven that their product was 100% environmental friendly in lab tests, simulations, chemical analysis, etc... then they would have never released the chemical into the air thus preventing the massive die offs of eagles and the effort put to save them from extinction.
ReplyDeleteI believe that anyone including me should take precaution measures on preventing any type of damage in the environment because as a human living on this planet I should at least care and make it a cleaner place to live in. Taking caution to deal with the problems on earth could make it easier for us because in the future we might face difficult environmental issues. An example of this would be the Large Hadron collider which is a simulator of the big bang and is potentially dangerous because the micro black holes that it creates could survive and "consume" the planet.
ReplyDeleteYes I accept the precautionary principle because I believe that we should care enough about the environment to stop something that could cause permanent damage. Yes I also strongly believe that people who want to introduce something new to our environment should demonstrate that it will not harm the environment because it can only help us in the long run if their change is tested before it goes into affect.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Precautionary Principle because there are things that are happening till this very minute that is hurting the environment. It’s important to tell the truth, in other word it’s important if a new chemical product will harm the environment or not. Not only will it show that it will not do any harm to humans, but to animals too. I myself would like to know that the chemicals that I have in my house are safe to keep around myself, my family, and my Chihuahua. I can take action for this and speak about it because like they say, you don’t need a thousand voices to make a change you only need one.
ReplyDeleteI think Precautionary Principle is defiantly necessary to maintain a healthy environment. Not testing a product or chemicals, and how they would react to the environment would be very ignorant and possibly harmful to plant and animal life, or worse harmful to people. Even though not testing something before producing a product would be cheaper than testing it, you cannot put a price tag on human lives in the environment. I think letting companies decide on this would also be a bad idea, because companies are driven by profits, not by character or morals.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the precautionary principle. In my opinion everything that is potentially dangerous, should not have to be proven dangerous to be illegal. It should be proven SAFE in order to become legal. The situation of our planet is not that of a court room – where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Our planet is to sacred and the marks that we leave cannot be removed. Everyone should first prove the safety of their technological invention before it is used, because we have caused too much damage to the planet and we cannot afford to continue doing it. However, it seems that the vast majority of the companies “cannot afford” to test the safety of their technology. If people took precautionary principle seriously, we would be able to live healthier lives and also preserve the planet for future generations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle. If people just did things here and there without thinking of what it could do to the environment it could destroy everything. It should actually be a law. I think this because we don't really have that much space left on earth to be doing detrimental things. Also with everything else going on the precautionary principle should be required. This is because just one off thing could change everything and we could have extensive amount of disaster.
ReplyDeleteI think the precautionary principle is necessary. It is stating that you need to take into consideration the consequences of what your experiment might have on the environment. If some one was not to do that, they possibly could cause great harm to the environment, which has a domino effect. As in, if an environment goes bad and the person was not prepared, did not follow the precautionary principle, and caused harm to the environment in that area it leads to hurting humans and animals. The destroyed environment would be a place where living organisms could not live. The removal of a whole area where wildlife and humans both share also affects other areas near it. All of the humans and animals would leave that area and travels to the next closest area, thus leading to overpopulation, which is already a growing problem in the world.
ReplyDeleteI accept the Precautionary Principle. In doing so, it will ensure that our economy wouldn't be effected in a negative way. If people show that what they want to put out to the economy wouldn't harm the planet in anyway, i strongly believe that their change should proceed. At the end of the day it will only make our planet a better place to live for all of us. The planet we live in today is being effected by pollution, and the only way to ensure that the planet is in good condition, all of the pollution needs to come to an end !
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle. Having people proof that their new chemical is harmless for the environment will only better the chance of a safe & health environment. If the environment gets damage it will affect us as humans because all of our sources comes from there. So the precautionary principle will not only help and save the environment, it will also help us by making sure the plants we eat are grown health and making sure the water we drink is clean.
ReplyDeleteThe precautionary principle is easy for me to accept because it takes the necessary steps to prevent environmental damage. If a company waits for proof that the activity is harming the environment, then living inhabitants must be sacrifced. Delaying a project for a few years or months is a small price to pay if it will save living things. Trial and error is effective in theory but does not suffice when it comes to preventing harm. Besides, most of the damage that would be caused by this pollution and abuse would be irreversible and cause substantial harm that will affect us negatively in some shape or form.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the precautionary principle is the best way to prevent harmful damage to the environment. If I were to take a prescription drug, I would want to know the side effects before I have to find them out myself and by that time it might be to late. This is what the precautionary principle is trying to protect, the environment from these unknown chemicals. So scientists should have to explain why their chemical or industrial process will cause no effect before proceding. Once the environment shows its been harmed, it might be too late.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle. I believe one must think about all the consequences before they actually take action. If the corporation or business place isn't aware of the possibilities of the harm that can be done to the environment surrounding them then many animal life and plant life could be destroyed. The less animals and plants we have the less resources people have to live. So, taking precautionary steps is the smart choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part with the precautionary principle. I agree that if possible, steps should be taken to make sure that certain actions don't harm the environment. However, when it comes to certain advancements in science that could benefit the human race I believe the environment must show if it is affected or not before scientists can deem it worth the risk. But in a case like that, whatever it is must be produced and tested in a small amount to reduce the environmental risk.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the precautionary principle because it will reverse the process of actions of men until now and force them to show the harmlessness of their actions before carrying them out. It will contribute to a certain extent to protect the environment by reducing our footprint and having control over the effect of our activities on the planet. However, one of my concerns is the institution that will be applying the regulations of the program to the public because if it happens to be a governmental one, the precautionary principle will be more rigorously applied to entrepreneurships and laxly applied to the government own potentially harmful nuclear researches. The precautionary principle should also be an international program to have more effect on the environment.
ReplyDeleteI do accept the precautionary principle. I say this because I can only begin to think about the things I find valuable to myself. Little things such as the dropping a McDonald's snack wrap wrapper on the ground could drastically change the appearance of your neighborhood in the long run. When being confronted with an environmental problem, I believe it is best that you should learn everything and reinforce things that we may have forgotten about.
ReplyDeleteEven though you may be harming things in the environment without knowing, there could always be ways to improve. If a new industrial process business were to set up on New land, I believe that it will automatically do something to the environment by it just being there, but with the Precautionary Principle, they could help lower their impact on the natural environment itself. By doing that, they are not only helping their selves, but, they are preserving the earth for many years to come.
I agree with the precautionary principle. Because of this it can possibly help decrease the human footprint that we put on the earth. In reslut this is helping to save our environment. Now is someone were to just go ahead and use a chemical that wasnt tested to see how it affects the enviroment but just us humans it can be very detrimental. So in the end th precautionary principle should be used but not just in America but around the whole world.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I highly believe that yes it is very important to test something before actually letting it go Into the environment. The main reason why would be because if something really does happen its not to late to fix it therefore we won't have a problem. Many people have made the mistake to not test before doing and they have messed up many things in and around our environment. So in conclusion I do beileve it's important to test something before we include it to the environment.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle because as humans we should know all possible outcomes that will come from our actions. I think that those who want to introduce something new onto the environment should find other ways to test it instead of just taking a risk on the land or animals. I think that it would not be just if when they are testing it for any possible harm and in doing so they cause harm.
ReplyDeleteI accept this Precautionary Principal, action should be taken to prevent damage to environment because if alot of damage is occuring in our environment a serious harm could effect us as humans and also our animals. Once actions are are taken cared of in our environment we as humans wont have to have any worries about our health issue.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do accept the precautionary principle. I would need proof that this new chemical, industrial process, land-use change, etc. would not harm the enviroment. Because it would not only harm the enviroment, it would harm all organisms on Earth. It would affect plants we grow and the food we eat. Plus, it would create dirty air, water, soil,etc. and lead to different illnesses and diseases. So if it would harm the enviroment, there for it would harm us.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with the precoutionary principle because first it helps us separate our pros and cons about our environment. Not only does it help with the upcoming problems by helping prevent them but it also helps with the situations we already have. If we don't take care of the problem it's extremely dangerous to the environment and it can harm many plants and animals in and around the community
ReplyDeleteI accept this principle because it is helping the world become safer. The world as it is now revolves around money, and people don't care about others lives. I believe that if people followed an abided by the precautionary principle dangerous would be quarantined. Eventhough this could be costly it could save lives. Most of the time you must put your wants to the side and recognize the whole communities needs.
ReplyDelete