The environmental group Ecojustice recently posted this news article about a proposed copper and gold mine in Northern British Columbia. The mine, according to Ecojustice, would “endanger wildlife, risk watershed contamination, and threaten the Stikine River”, mainly by way of waste from its operation.
Ecojustice contends that the public should be allowed participation in the government’s comprehensive assessment of the proposal for the mine. “We hope to safeguard Canadians’ ability to protect the environment through a comprehensive assessment process that involves public participation and applies the precautionary principle,” said a lawyer with the group.
Application of the wingspread precautionary principle in this case requires that the process be open and democratic and include any potentially affected parties. It seems, therefore, that the call for public involvement in the mine’s assessment is valid. The principle also implies that this mine should not be built unless the mining company can prove that no environmental harm would result from its existence.
Many problems arise when applying the precautionary principle. Firstly, it has been shown that people (the public) tend to be risk averse towards gain. This mine presents opportunities for gain by the public, in the form of potential jobs and in resources required by the society to which this public belongs. The mine also represents risks of potential environmental harm. By including the public in the assessment, tendency will be against the approval of the mine, regardless of the risk to benefit ratio.
Indeed, there are plausible risks of potential environmental harm from the mine. Ecojustice inaccurately concludes that this potential is one hundred percent. For example, they say definitively that the mine “would destroy part of three streams”. Regardless of this, it would be impossible to conclude without uncertainty that the mine presents zero risk or non-zero risk. The scope and cost to fully satisfy this requirement of the principle would be inconceivably large. Therefore the application of the precautionary principle in this case, as in others, is not useful.
Furthermore, the precautionary principle would also require that the public bare the burden of proof that their participation in the assessment would have no harmful affect on the environment, which again, would be impossible to conclude.
Reference:
http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/environmental-groups-take-feds-to-the-supreme-court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Trevor, I enjoyed reading your blog this week because you connected what we have discussed in class to your writing. An example of this is when you said, "...the people tend to be risk averse towards gain". I also liked how you identified possible oppositional views to this situation regarding the precautionary principle, and furthermore how you explained why the principle is still not useful. Lastly, the way you have separated each main idea into paragraphs, instead of bunching it all together, is effective and further demonstrates your sophisticated style of writing.
ReplyDelete