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 of why you accept the principle, or why you reject the principle, are always good to include.
Proofread your blog comment for grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.
I believe it is essential to prove if your theory will not harm the environment. If your theory harms the environment you are putting people's lives in danger and it can lead to natural disasters. Therefore, you must prove that your theory will not harm the environment before testing your theory.
ReplyDeleteI think they should give their theory/plan to be sure that it won't harm the environment or people in the area. It's essential for the people to know this and for those of authority to make a decision on whether or not they'll aprove of it.
ReplyDeleteThe burden of proof should belong to those that gave to prove that they will not harm the enviroment. This could prevent a damaging activity or substance from have a chance to cause problems. If burden of proof falls on the opposite party than damage may have already been done to the enviroment and will continue until said party is successful.
ReplyDeleteI strongly accept that the precautionary principle. The reason being is that in today's society scientists and researchers are coming up with great inventions that may benefit the environment. But even though scientist may believe that it may benefit society, they should still test to prove if their theory is correct. No matter how great a theory or an invention may be, theories should be proven in case they may become hazardous to society. If these theories are not proven, many lives may be put at risk. Therefore I accept the precautionary principle.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of the precautionary principle. With the growth of science as a whole there are going to be researchers that will coin different ways to help the environment in some way. Those who wish to experiment such research should prove that their process is safe and will not cause harm to the environment. Precautionary measures should be taken because the world needs to know the effects it will have on the environment, if it will be safe around the population, what the longterm effects will be, and why this would the best method to use, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the precautionary principle. As science develops and becomes more intricate, new ideas will be used to benefit humans. But, with new ideas being produced, not all of it is safe to the planet or animals. Research should be done to test the theory and have concrete proof before acting on the theory.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Precautionary Principle is one that is vital to abide by in the world of today. The reason I find this principle so essential is that without it the environment we live in will most likely suffer further damage. Corporations in particular are run with a profit motif and not an environmental one. The Precautionary Principle provides checks and balances that will help corporations and the population in general to be more socially conscious, thinking more of the well-being of people, animals and the environment in general. We greatly need this.
ReplyDeleteI agree that those who wish to introduce a new chemical, and so on have to demonstrate that their change will not harm the environment before proceeding. Before doing anything, I think that a company needs to know the effects it will have in the environment in the longterm because we don't want to start something that we can't fix. Many living things can go away if we put in effect something that can damage the environment. I strongly agree with the precautionary principle.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Precautionary Principle, and that any chemicals being released into the environment should be proven to be harmless before they are used. There have been many cases where harmful chemicals or processes have been used for a short period of time, and have been detrimental to our environment and still affect us today. I believe it is the smarter choice to make sure that anything that can effect our environment is harmless before it is used, to avoid creating problems in our eco-system that become very hard to fix.
ReplyDeleteI with the Precautionary Principle. I feel as though any chemicals should be tested to see if they are safe for the environment. Testing should be done for the simple fact of figuring out what can go wrong before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteI accept the principle because it acts as a defense system for our environment. People should have to prove that their invention will not bring harm to the environment and it's inhabitants because if they do not, there can be a possibility of causing serious harm. It should be in the producers interest to make sure his or her product will not be harmful, at the least. If everyone put in the time and effort into testing their products for dangerous chemicals, then we would all experience less damage to our environment.
ReplyDeleteThe The Precautionary Principle seems like a great Idea, and honestly anyone who disagrees with this would have a hard time convincing me otherwise. The environment is bad enough as it is and there's no point of gaining information about planet earth, if there is no planet. Analyzing the effects of the experiment should be a given and I like to go green.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the terms of the Precautionary Principle. Regularly, scientists and other researchers discover unique methods and procedures that they believe will benefit the environment. Although the aim of their research is to aid the environment, it is imperative that adequate testing is done to ensure the safety of the environment and those near that environment. If scientists and researchers just introduce chemicals and other substances into the environment, we are putting our lives at serious risks because we have no testing or other forms of evidence that we can use to prove what will or will not occur. Without the precautionary principle, I believe it will incite competition among scientists and researchers because they all would attempt to create a chemical, industrial or land-based process that outshines that of his or her contemporaries. As a result, there will be a slew of chemicals roaming in the air and without adequate testing, we will be unaware of the detrimental effects these chemicals and other items may have when they come into contact with each other. The Precautionary Principle is a great idea because it will prevent catastrophic events from occurring. Also, with testing and observation, scientists can learn how to use these processes to ensure that their product reaches its full potential and benefits the community at large.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Precautionary Principle and its efforts to help the Earth. It is important for those who wish to introduce a new chemical to be aware of it's effects on the environment it is surrounded by because the planet that we live on today won't change. But as a result of laziness, carelessness, and inconsideration, our Earth is dying each day but can be prevented with a little help from each other and the Precautionary Principle.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Precautionary Principle. The world we live in is already bad enough and the last thing we as humans who inhabit the Earth is to destroy it more than we have. This will help discover problems and flaws in plans that may end up having a negative effect on the environment. This will also help with plans that get formed because we now have another buffer in the system which will help us to have a better environment all together.
ReplyDeleteThe Precautionary Principle is a great idea in my opinion. In modern day I believe we tend to act rather than thinking first. Just how we never know the risk of the potentially harmful things that we post online, tampering with nature and things we don't fully understand, can definitely came back to haunt us. We don't want to harm the earth that we live on as it is the only one we have as of right now.
ReplyDeleteTesting is crucial when figuring out if something can be potentially harmful. Getting information on an area of land would give a chance for scientist to know the possibility of something going very wrong. Without a test, we would never know if what we are doing is playing "God, Jury, and Executioner".
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, acting first has turned out to be better in most of my experiences. When acting first, I would learn from my decision after it has completely fallen apart. However, in this particular example, in nature, acting first will not be best thing to do. Without testing, you can never know what will go wrong. Damage could be tremendous and irreversible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that whoever wants to either use the land or make changes to the environment should first make sure that they aren't harming the surrounding area. Without knowing if the process is dangerous or not the environment could be altered for the worse and affect plant, animal and human life near that site. If there are no living creatures that would be effected there is still the possibility that the process could mess with the atmosphere or ozone, adding the damage to everything. It would be best that the company make sure they are not changing the environment for the worse. They should further research ways around it or if they must, they should be held accountable for repairing the damage they caused.
ReplyDeleteThe precautionary principle is a simple solution for people and the environments safety. As the name states, "precaution." You never know how the earth may react to a new and unproved invention nor how bad it will affect the environment if it does fail. There are scientists who believe they have come up with great theories and inventions to better the environment, but a great theory could end up turning into the worst thing that ever happened to the environment. The environment already has enough problems that are primarily un-fixable, so we don't need any more slip ups when it comes to dealing with substances that can harm our environment. If our environment is harmed, our lives are being put at risk too. The precautionary principle is an effective way to keep our environment as protected as we can and to keep scientists active. I say this because when a good scientist comes up with some idea that they believe will better the environment and they fail, they go at it plenty of more times until they either get it right, or show us why it may never be able to work.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the precautionary principle stated above. I believe that anyone who wants to introduce something new into society or into nature should be able to verify that their new process or idea won't affect the environment. I have recently read the Tragedy of the Commons and it says that we should regulate everything in the environment, because the ever growing human population will eventually exhaust all natural resources. The environment is is being destroyed by people who seek only profits and power and nobody is really concerned with the health of the environment. They are to blind to see that without the environment, everything will be lost. Many existing businesses are creating products at the expense of the environment. The world doesn't need more businesses like these, we need to find new and more efficient ways to create the products and at the same time help the environment. I think it is a good time to start to use some of these ideas mentioned in this article, so that we can prevent environmental catastrophe in the near future.
ReplyDeleteI feel the precautionary principle would be a good idea, because scientists need to make sure that the environment will be safe after being experimented on or altered in any way. Also I would accept the principle because this affects me in many ways such as my health and the people around me. I would want to make sure that our safety and well being will still be guaranteed and not effected in a catastrophic way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that scientists definitely should prove that their presented change will not harm the atmospheres and/or our mother earth and environments, in any way, shape, or form. It is essential that one must prove that the change presented will not inflict harm on the environment because our worlds "tolerance" of our recent untested changes, has rapidly decreased and the build up is and will be fatal if we continue to adopt changes that haven't been texted or examined.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Precautionary Principle, because I think that any chemical should be tested before using it for only safety purposes to the environment. I also believe that analyzing this process would make things easier and a good way to go for the environment.
ReplyDelete