When there is uncertainty about whether a new technology or a political decision is dangerous or not, then it should be considered dangerous, even if there is no reliable scientific evidence. This establishes the so-called precautionary principle. Why is this generally accepted as reasonable except when it comes to the climate, even though we have secure evidence.
97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is a fact and that human activity is the main cause of it. This is an argument that is usually thrown out at regular intervals.
The reference to 97% is probably based on a 2013 study published in Environmental Research Letters in which researchers reviewed 11,944 scientific articles using the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change”.
Of these, 4,014 articles directly touched on the causes of recent global warming, and 97.1% of these articles supported the scientific consensus that man is the cause of the warming.
Another meta study from 2017, conducted by James L Powell, head of the National Physical Science Consortium in the US, plowed through 54,195 scientific articles written from 1991 to 2015. Of those articles, 99.4% agreed that warming was a fact and that we are causing it.
Other similar studies have landed on numbers from 91 to 97%.
Now, of course, there are those who point out that it does not matter so much how many scientists agree on our role in warming. They point to the fact that there was a time when a devastating majority of scientists were certain that the continents of the earth were not moving or that the lunar craters were of volcanic origin. Even a small minority may, over time, prove to be right.
That is true in itself, but firstly: the generation of scientists who today speak about the climate has vastly better equipment at their disposal, and much more high-quality data and overall knowledge to back up their arguments than ever before. generations in total. Science has progressed a great deal since the early 1900s when it was convinced that no continental drift existed.
And secondly, the efforts are infinitely greater this time, regarding the climate issue. Whether Eurasia and America slip apart or not, very few people are in the back of their everyday lives.
However, whether we are heating up the earth’s climate with disastrous consequences, it is literally a matter of life or death for a large part of everyone living today, not to mention the unborn.
We are more or less forced to draw the right conclusions now, and act on the basis of them. Most likely, there will be no more chances.
There is a principle that is applied, inter alia, by the EU, and in public administration. It is called the precautionary principle. It states that when there is uncertainty as to whether, for example, a new technology, or a political measure can harm the public or the environment, and lacking scientific consensus on whether the technology or measure is dangerous, the technology or measure should be considered dangerous.
The burden of proof falls on the operator, and on those who claim its harmlessness.
In other words, even when there is no complete certainty as to whether something is dangerous or not, the authorities should treat this something with a sound suspicion, as if it were dangerous. Guilty until proven innocent, somehow.
For example, the precautionary principle was the basis for the agreement on biodiversity, which was part of the action program adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
“If biodiversity threats are noticeably weakened or extinction is threatened, the lack of reliable scientific evidence must not be used as a reason for failing to take measures that eliminate the threat or mitigate its consequences,” the text of the agreement states. The same principle also underlies the climate convention of the same conference.
Today, as I said, you can’t even blame for the lack of consensus when it comes to global warming and its causes. Whichever meta-study you choose to refer to, the climate-skeptic referenced peer-reviewed scientific articles are in a vanishingly small minority.
Still, there are plenty of those willing to throw the precautionary principle on the dump and happily ignore all the risks and throw more coal under the boiler, based on the tiny likelihood that some single doubters are right.
It’s a pretty daring game if you ask me.
Imagine the following: you have a bridge that leads over a rushing, life-threatening rapids. 99 out of 100 bridge construction engineers say the bridge is deadly and will crash into the rapids at any time. Would you send your children out on the bridge based on what that one engineer says, “there is no danger, the bridge is enough”?
Would you be a little more inclined to send your children out on the bridge if there were “only” 97 of the 100 engineers who say the bridge is deadly? Or 91? Or 50? Where does the border go?
I don’t know about you, but I would feel uneasy about the idea of my kids crossing the bridge if only one of the 100 engineers says the bridge is deadly. Call me weird, but I get a little happy when my kids’ lives are at stake.
Despite this, there are clearly plenty of people who do not think that you need to listen to those 99 engineers because partly it will be expensive and the children will be delayed from school if we have to make the detour via the new bridge further up the road. And partly, this one engineer has a very convincing Youtube video where he says the other 99 are lying! Look for yourself!
This is really the logic that underlies a large part of the long-term decisions that the world’s decision-makers are making right now, from the White House to Virböle. It is as if the precautionary principle has never even existed.
How was it like this? How, then, did we think?
Leave a Reply