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.
Taking care of thing before they happen is the best thing to do instead, of waiting for something to happen. Often things can be taking care of before they happen, which I would often do because things that may harm another or the enviroment can be detected before its final product is released to the public. Thing that could harm the public should be taking care before being released because after it is realeased it may cause more to perfect than if it was fixed befire it has been release.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle. If you don’t know something you came up with will hurt the environment or not, first and foremost, you should get it checked out by experts because you put the actual product out there and therefore it may harm our environment. It might cost some money to get it checked out by experts, however, that money that it may cost to get it checked out by an expert prior to putting it out there, may be less of a cost to you than if you never took that precautionary step and it affected our environment. If that happened we would have to deal with it as an environment, including cost which could be tremendous.
ReplyDeleteIt's better to be safe than sorry especially when it comes to our environment. If I was in the position of power I would rather have take precaution when introducing my new chemical than taking the risk of harming the environment or people that are going to be using it. Especially from a business stand point it doesn't look good if I have people suing me for the chemical in my product not being tested. I believe all people should take precaution when it comes to chemical products. It presents less risks especially if we know what the side effects to the chemical is.
ReplyDeleteCreating something can get a person a lot of money, but also it can bankrupt a person as well. If I were to invent and create something I would make sure it is safe, for people and for the environment. I believe that testing my creation before mass producing it will take less money. If my product were to ham someone, most likely there are a lot more people that have been affected with the same thing, so if I were to just test it test it before hand I wouldn’t have hundreds of thousands of people suing me, costing a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle. Caring for our environment has become an issue talked about around the world. People recently realized we can no longer mistreat our environment and expect it to stay perfect. We are responsible to tack care of our environment, this means testing the things we create for any harm it can cause the environment or people. Our government today is doing a pretty good job protecting us form harmful chemicals or anything that would truly harm the environment through strict laws. But many companies around the world continue to pollute the environment knowing it is harming people, this is because it cost less to allow someone to die then to make their products safe. We are accountable for our future generations to keep our planet healthy.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle because it is better to test the product out to see if the product does any harm to the environment. This principle will benefit the person who owns the product. It will benefit him/her by them testing the product and if it passes the test then there will not be any harm to the user or the environment. If there is a promblem that is detected from the tests they could fix it so it can be resolved and prevent any injuries. So in the end this principle will benefit the product owner and most importanly the enviroment.
ReplyDeleteI totally accept with the precautionary principle because there are not a lot of people taking action about our environment. It would be more safe to our environment if people were to demonstrate that their change will not effect our environment before proceeding into doing their change. However many people and companies do the opposite and have no shame. Reason because money controls everything in the USA. Lets be realistic if I were a company advertising my change and how it will not harm the environment I will test it myself before killing people or being suied
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle fully. Someone always has to pay. But if you spend the money on testing the product and making sure it is safe then it saves you money in the long run. If you don't test it then you will have to pay way more for the negative effects of your product. It's always better so work smarter and prevent a problem than to work hard after the fact and pay.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle by testing out the product first. I agree with it because it's always good to test a product before you put it on the market to sell. So if something goes wrong then you will get the blame and will have to pay the consequences. Also nowadays before people put their product on the market they get people to test it more than once just so they're comfortable putting it out. Lastly it's just the smarter thing to do before selling it to customers.
ReplyDeleteI accept The Precautionary Principle. I think that companies selling new chemicals and so on should test their chemical before putting it out for the public to buy it and then have harm done to the environment. Big companies that try to sell these products should take the time and money to check their product before releasing it for stores to sell, because by going the extra step it will benefit the company. When companies first decide to bring out a new chemical product they should first make sure that this chemical is environmentally friendly so no harm is done to people, animals and trees. Personally if it was my business company I would make sure that the chemical product I’m trying to sell in stores is checked and will do no harm to the environment.
ReplyDeleteI accept the Precautionary Principle because, when a comapny or someone comes out with a new chemical or a new industrial process etc,they would want to run some test and make sure it's good for business when they release it. When the company just release the product without running test and experiments and it harms people then the company could face a fine or even being sued for everything they have. Although if you look at it both ways, you would see that your spending money but in the long run when a company pays the money to make sure their products are good they would not have to worry about being sued or losing their thier company. This is why I accept the precautionary principle.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle to the fullest. When a company creates a new chemical or industrial process they need to make sure it's safe before others invest their money and use it. It's a risky situation on both ends. You could either put the product out there and see if it creates problems in the environment or among the people. Or, you could invest money on the product to make sure it's safe but it might not sell so it would be a waste of money. I think anytime you put out a product you need to make sure it's safe because other wise you could be sued and lose a lot more money. So therefore I accept the precautionary principle.
ReplyDeleteCreating chemicals that could be used in the environment is something that has to be tested and accepted by the EPA before their introduction. Hence there are different kinds of organisms living in the environment, these chemicals may be harmful to them including us(human) henceforth endangering life in the environment.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle due to the fact that all chemical products should undergo a series of experiments before being introduced to the public. The reason being is because we are not aware of the potential danger these chemicals impose to the environment. Companies whom wish to introduce their chemicals to the public must place their products under a series of examinations to declare that their substance has no affect on the environment. It is better for people to understand that the products they are buying causes no affect to the environment. Therefore by accepting the precautionary principle, companies will have to inform their customers that their newly introduced chemical has no affect on the environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI accept the precautionary principle because it is the best and healthiest way to go about your franchise. If something is possibly harmful to the community. The best thing for your clients is to check or test the product first. Either way you will be wasting money in the future do to possible sues, why not play it safe.
ReplyDeleteYes, I accept the precautionary principle. There is a saying that goes "better safe than sorry", a principle that should be applied especially when it comes to decisions involving the environment in some way or form, considering the fact that we all have to live off it at the end of the day. All new things should be tested to see if they might have an impact on the environment, regardless of the testing costs because no matter how much it all sums up to, it will always be little compared to the lasting impact that thing might have on the environment if it were allowed to roam free without testing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that newly introduced chemicals should be tested thoroughly and abide by certain safety standards before being released and used inside of the environment. Chemicals can easily become harmful and may not show immediate signs of damage towards our environment causing the likely outcome of late awareness to a ongoing problem that has had days, weeks, years, or perhaps even centuries to develop. Now, what was once a somewhat minor danger towards the environment has now been allowed to transform and become a problem on a much more larger scale with the possibility of impacting the the lives of all living organisms on the globe. Safety guidelines are key when it comes to the introduction of new processes and chemical substances and their involvement in the environment.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the precautionary principle because. In life you must always create for yourself a margin for error. The if statement cannot be applied when it comes to the environment. For example if I don't re-inforce the pips on the underground oil line it might bust under pressure. This if statement can cause complete chaos on the environment. A great example would be the oil spill caused by the oil company BP for that same reason. The environment is always unpredictable but we must keep our noses up and be ready. So I fully support the precautionary principle 100%.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary priciple. Creating somebody and finding out the effects and harms before anything or anyone gets hurts is much better than finding out later. You cant change the past once it's happened so the best thing to do determine what are the negatives and positives of your actions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle. Once a new chemical or somethign is created it should always be tested does no matter what it is going to be used for. You can not wait for an answer from the envioroment because you never know when it is going to be to late. The health and safety of the enviroment is in our hands and it is our esponsability to know that what we are putting out into our enviroment is not causing detrimental harm because we rely on our enviroment to survive. So we must take care of the enviorment as we would ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Principle. Creating someone and finding out the effects of what you made is way better than finding out much later.
ReplyDelete