Not exact matches
In Europe, for example, we base
much regulation on the «
precautionary principle».
Read more than the first page of search results; once you get several pages into them, you'll find
much more than the first page of most popular results — interesting slide sets, frothing mad attacks on the
precautionary principle, poignant reminders that Cassandra was right.
European policy makers are
much more apt to use «
precautionary principles» than than their American counterparts.
He has likely given
much weight on «the
precautionary principle» in his judgment.
The
precautionary principle is a bottomless well of anxieties, but our resources are finite — it's possible to buy so
much flood insurance that you can't afford fire insurance.
In the question I would avoid explicit reference to the
precautionary principle — it is too
much of a pre-wrapped bias (as a crutch or as a club) to hand a candidate.
I can't make
much sense of arguments such as the
precautionary principle, etc., and don't want to try to puzzle them out.
So how
much certainty do you actually need to trigger the
precautionary principle?
The
precautionary principle for GMO also indicates that we should proceed
much more slowly and with
much more caution.
Given that many (not all) highly regarded climatologists regard the «catastrophic» case as the most likely case and that
much of the research literature, including the IPCC report devotes substantial space to quantifying the uncertainties, I tend to conclude that the current state of knowledge regards the risk of catastrophic climate change as significant and that the
precautionary principle applies.
The ozone layer may not have be damaged,
much less fixed, yet the role of the
precautionary principle has been written out of history.
Nanoparticles may already be a part of your life you just don't know too
much about - they are in underwear, socks, and other performance clothing - and another area that could have used a bit of the
precautionary principle before consumer products were launched on markets.
My view is that the IPCC procedures of handling uncertainty are very
much influenced by the fact that the authors have had the decision making and more specifically the
precautionary principle in the back of their mind.
I have nothing
much against the use of «grey literature» (or — I might as well come clean all at once — the
precautionary principle, a revenue - neutral carbon tax and opposition to consumerism and overpopulation) but it's got to be solid «grey literature» — Agoumi wasn't — and you've got it to paraphrase it accurately — the IPCC didn't and still hasn't.