Sentences with phrase «full scientific certainty»

They define «lack of full scientific certainty» and it becomes a conflict between genuine uncertainty and what is required to promote the political agenda.

Even there in the Rio conference 1992 was stated that there is lack of full scientific certainty concerning the believed anthropogenic warming.

It found that the field trials of Bt eggplants «could not be declared... safe to human health and to our ecology with full scientific certainty (my emphasis).»

This was reasonable, he said, because the convention requires signatories to «take precautionary measures» and that «where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures».

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost - effective in order to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost - effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost

Full scientific certainty is virtually impossible to achieve from a study.

The overarching justification for most climate change policies today derives from a political interpretation of Principle 15 (now called the Precautionary Principle) of the United Nations Rio Declaration of 1992, which states: «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.»

«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.»

Where there are threats to 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.

The vague phrase, «lack of full scientific certainty» easily pushes science aside; then you steal the moral high ground by claiming to protect the environment.

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.»

The Rio declaration, signed by the UK and 171 other states, defines it as follows: «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.»

The court also noted a special review of whether the pesticide presented an unacceptable environmental risk to amphibians was required by the precautionary principle, which holds that given 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 adverse health impact or environmental degradation.

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.

The preamble to SARA states «the Government of Canada is committed to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to a wildlife species, cost - effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty».