Sentences with phrase «for precautionary action»

There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level.

In fact some at IPCC have argued the paleoclimate data are irrelevant to the case for precautionary action.

Not exact matches

European countries and environmentalists argued for incorporation of the «precautionary approach,» which says that it may be necessary to take action even when the scientific evidence is incomplete.

The Precautionary Principle — which some interpret as saying that, if a course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage, then one should not pursue it, no matter how great the benefits may be — gave Europeans a firm philosophical basis for saying no to GMOs.

For that reason we * can not * apply the precautionary principal and we can not justify radical action on GHGs until we see real data (not computer models) which demonstrates that the effect of GHGs is bad.

Industry has used this argument to delay action on endocrine disruptors for years, in spite of calls for the use of the precautionary principle and the obligations in Europe for suppliers to prove safety before they are allowed to sell their products.

Any major slip - up or failure to take precautionary action can result in disaster for the scam.

While there are many definitions and nuances to the precautionary principle, of particular relevance here is the concept of «strong» versus «weak» precaution (e.g. Gardiner 2006): under weak precaution, the burden of proof for justifying the need for action falls on those advocating precautionary action, whereas under strong precaution the burden of proof is on those who argue that the activity does not cause significant harm.

Increased uncertainty provides a greater probability of occurrence of the catastrophe, strengthening the case for action under the precautionary principle

That is, under the weak precautionary principle, uncertainty does NOT make the case stronger for action, whereby the under the strong precautionary principle, uncertainty arguably strengthens the case for action.

Clean up the IPCC consensus process and clear up all the many uncertainties first before clamoring for mitigating action based on the «precautionary principle».

So it becomes necessary to downplay the high level of «uncertainty» in order to justify the need for «urgent action», cloaking it all as the «precautionary principle».

Under the precautionary principle agreed in the climate change convention, nations promised not to use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking cost - effective action.

Strikingly, the precautionary principle also raises it's head, and probably for the same reason it shows up in climate science: action — drug use — is urged with great frequency despite the fact that our understanding of the situation — in this case various chronic diseases and how to deal with them, is often quite incomplete.

I can logically say the precautionary principle indicates the need for urgent action on climate change and the need for slow, cautious, well - studied progress on GMOs.

Starting from two different decision frameworks (precautionary principle versus robust decision making) and assumptions about the nature of the uncertainty (PDF versus possibility distribution) results in opposite conclusions regarding whether uncertainty weakens or strengthens the case for action.

From the legal perspective, some people define economic - based crime to be an act of abstention from pursuing an action that will result in harm to the economic policy or the economic security of the country, committed by a person eligible for taking the criminal responsibility; such an act is prohibited by law and for which the law has prescribed a penalty or precautionary measures.