Sentences with phrase «precautionary principle taken»

This is a beautiful example of the silly precautionary principle taken to its logical limit.

comment 13: Comment 18: «This is a beautiful example of the silly precautionary principle taken to its logical limit.»

Not exact matches

There are other aspects of the NGP Report that merit further discussion, including its approach to adaptive management (we now have three different JRP reports in as many years that take different views on the extent to which AM can be relied upon in making a determination as to the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects under CEAA), the precautionary principle, species at risk and Aboriginal consultation.

Bottom line for researchers and medical personnel: Take the mammalian baby baseline seriously and use a precautionary principle.

Designating the Chagos Archipelago a no - take marine protected area (MPA) was based on the best available science.The precautionary principle was...

So it was decided — on a precautionary principle — that some steps can be taken to reduce exposure to radiation.»

These recommendations are rooted in the precautionary principle and the belief that the health of people and our environment must take precedence over corporate profits.

Note that, even if the situation turns out not be quite so dire, action should be taken on the precautionary principle; see Douglas's comment # 33.

Following from # 57: John Nissen: Note that, even if the situation turns out not be quite so dire, action should be taken on the precautionary principle; see Douglas's comment # 33.

But simple logic, whether or not you subscribe to the precautionary principle, says we would do well to take extra care in making sure we don't screw up this one in ways that are hard to reverse.

The precautionary principle asks of us to do more than we would like, but as long as it seems not completely impossible, we should try all we can, or else take unacceptable risks of catastrophe.

The biggest flaw in the neocon approach is the hypocrisy of applying the precautionary principle to spend trillions of dollars responding to «best available» military intelligence, but posturing to insist on 110 % certainty when it comes to taking action to avert possible environmental threats.

Although the Service may take the position that such emissions would not trigger consultation, that decision is ultimately to be left to the courts, which notably have shown a readiness to adopt precautionary principles, as well as the benefit of the doubt, in favor of endangered species.

However, the huge amounts of money, time and possible detrimental econmic effects that are being talked about with schemes such as Cap - n - Trade make your «If» one hell of a gamble to take — it's a classic precautionary principle argument and that's not necessarily a good way to run anything.

I won't comment here on the precautionary principle except to note that you need to read Aaron Wildavsky's take on it in his book «But Is It True?»

But, if you see the prefix, you may want to take the precautionary principle and avoid these products.

The decision to apply the precautionary principle has in many ways already been taken, but personally I believe that it has been taken rashly and without regard for the cost versus benefit.

It's correct to take the precautionary principle into account in the estimate of the damages giving more weight to the unfavorable outcomes than to the favorable, but the uncertainties in the efficiency of the mitigating measures should be also taken into account and taken them into account means that the correct level of tax is lower than it would be without this uncertainty.

There's little point in challenging the precautionary principle without taking a critical view of its context and the issues to which it has been applied.

We are unwise if we draw from Sunstein's work that the principle (over a dozen distinct precautionary principles are extant, dependent on situation) is wrong, just because it can sometimes lead to wrong outcomes in situations where there is no good way to predict what action to take.

The precautionary principle, as I've outlined it, shows the problems you have when you have misdiagnosed something benign as a threat, and then take actions that are more harmful than the status quo.

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.

So when he and two co-authors published a paper on the precautionary principle as it applies to genetically modified organisms it is worth taking seriously.

If these claims about biodiversity were not hidden behind the precautionary principle — if real numbers took the place of vapid speculation — Guardian editors would have nothing to hide behind.

Consequently, anyone seriously worried about taking the precautions mandated by an application of a precautionary principle must look at preventing the colder temperatures and lower carbon dioxide levels which have always resulted in catastrophic extinctions of 40 percent, 60 percent, or even 90 percent of all species of life on the Earth.

Even if we accepted the notion it was vitally necessary to apply the precautionary principle, assuming it is necessary to take precautions against a warming of the world climate makes no sense whatsoever.

However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.

People need to realize that the real precautionary principle needs to take into account the risk that there will be no global action.

(para. 33) In that context, following the precautionary principle, the Court reiterated that the authorities are required to take into account «protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects on the site».