The Role of the Public in Precautionary Thinking

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

Benguet Residents Oppose Construction of Sanitary Landfill

In Itigon, Benguet, in the Philippines, the government is trying to install a sanitary landfill in an open pit mine site in a residential area. Residents of the area have opposed the construction of the landfill because they claim that it will pose a threat to the health and safety of the residents living in Itigon, the residents of surrounding communities, as well as the environment. The article that I used to demonstrate precautionary thinking is called “Benguet Folk Reject Sanitary Landfill”, written by Dexter See in 2009.

The precautionary principle is used in this case because the residents are saying that the construction of the sanitary landfill could potentially be harmful to the environment and to the residents, so the landfill should not be built at all. This is using the strong precautionary principle as the residents are proposing that the government take no action in building the sanitary landfill since it could potentially cause harm in the future. There is no proof available that it will be bad for the environment or that it could be harmful to the residents. I understand that the residents are worried about their own safety, but I do not completely agree with the use of the precautionary principle in this case. The landfill that the government is talking about constructing is supposed to be sanitary and I think that in the long run, it will make the community cleaner. This also means that the residents will actually be safer because the air will be cleaner and the surrounding environment will be less polluted. I believe that the usage of the precautionary principle in this situation was not well thought out, as the health and safety of the environment and the residents was considered in the present but not in the future.

Reference
See, Dexter. Benguet Folk Reject Sanitary Landfill. Manila Bulletin Publishing Company. October 19, 2009. http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/225491/benguet-folk-reject-sanitary-landfill. Accessed October 19, 2009.

The New Barcode: A Potential Threat to the Recycling Industry

The idea of using barcodes to keep track of large quantities of items in a store, as well as preventing shoplifting, has been replaced with a new and improved technology, radio-frequency identification tags (RFID tags). Although these tags may be beneficial in the commercial industry, the Federal Environment Agency of Germany released an article based on their study which suggested that the continuous usage of RFID tags may pose a potential threat to the recycling industry.

In the article, the agency uses precautionary thinking to strengthen the backbone of their claim. They imply that since the outcome of this action is unknown, we should act in a way that will avoid serious potential harm. They demonstrate this by giving various examples of negative obstacles that the tags may generate during the course of recycling. For instance, they state that when melting down waste glass that includes a RFID tag, the resulting material could become less shatterproof and more discoloured due to the trace amounts of aluminum and silicon that are contained in the tags (Federal Environment Agency of Germany, 2009). Furthermore, they demonstrate use of the precautionary principle by explaining that because there are hypothetical risks towards using RFID tags, usage should cease until the commercial industry takes the necessary steps in resolving the possible ecological issues.

Although an oppositional view on this argument might express that RFID tags should be used until concrete evidence of negative environmental impacts arise, the authors of this article show that the possible dilemmas in the recycling process outweigh the commercial benefit of tag usage.

By giving reasons of uncertainty concerning the system of identification tags, which leads to the precautionary principle, the agency effectively defends their idea as to why usage of these “trackers” should be put on hold until further research and solutions come into play.

Reference
Federal Environment Agency of Germany. (2009) When Tags Interfere With Recycling, 22 September 2009. http://www.packagingdigest.com/articleXml/LN1049014938.html?nid=3462. Accessed 18 Sunday October 2009.

Biofuel dilemna

Many issues come to rise when the topic of fuel is raised. Most concerns revolve around how waste carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate and health of our planet. In an article released by the FAO “Reviewing biofuel policies and subsidies” reporting on their paper, “The State of Food and Agriculture 2008” the possible solutions and drawbacks of biofuel are explored. The report displays an ideal of precautionary thinking where the odds of the outcome are unknown then we should move to act in the direction that causes the least amount of harm. With biofuels this ideal can be placed on a number of different levels. They state numerous negative effects biofuel production will have on not only the world’s economy but also individual communities in general.

The article states, ”When looking at the environmental dimension, the balance is not always positive.” (Northoff 2009). They base this on the amount of reduction in the net greenhouse emissions. Here the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel use and processing are weighed against the cost of deforestation to grow the biofuel crops. I agree with their use and conclusion stemming from the precautionary principle. I believe in this case the costs out weigh the benefits, even though the full potential of biofuel as an alternative is unknown. The precautionary principle also states to move to prevent harm even though the possibility of the even happening is unknown. I believe in this case we should move to do as the article suggests and place measures where the growth and use of biofuels is closely monitored so the full benefits and least amount of negative effects can occur.

Resources:

Northoff, Erwin. Reviewing Biofuel Policies and Subsides. Food and Agriculture Organization. October 7 ,2008. Accessed October 17 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/news/story/ch/item/8223/icode/en/

Is Nanotechnology the future of waste managment or an invisble health hazard?

http://e360.yale.edu.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/content/feature.msp?id=2029
Nanotechnology covers a branch of science in which atomic manipulation is made possible through the use of microscopic robots, electronics and materials. The applications of atomic manipulation are almost endless, some including: recycling of materials andpurification or clean up of pollution. With such a wide range of possibilities the future of nanoscience seems quite promising. Many businesses and governments are heavily investing in an effort to advance this technology. But with the rapid and unchecked development of nanotechnology many are questioning if we are getting ahead of ourselves.
In Nanotech: The unknown risks, Carole Bass cautions the safety of this rapidly expanding technology. She uses the precautionary principle to effectively construct an argument for regulation due to our lack of knowledge surrounding this technology. This topic is an appropriate application for the precautionary principle because this technology is being integrated into many consumer products and a large proportion of the population is being exposed with relatively limited knowledge of the effects and behaviour of nanoparticles. In the article she explains that while the applications for this technology are promising, not enough effort or attention is being paid to studying the risks of the technology. A number of recent studies have made potential links between nanoparticles and serious health problems in humans and certain organisms. The studies indicate that while nanoparticles are made of familiar elements like carbon and silver, on the atomic level these elements could behave quite differently and be dangerous(Bass 2009). Another problem is that nanoparticles are so small, that exposure to these substances through consumer products is virtually unavoidable. In this context the precautionary principle is appropriate and should be applied for risk assessment and policy, due to the sheer lack of knowledge of the risks to human health and the environment.

References
Bass Carole. (2008, 23 June 2008). Nanotech: The unknown risks. Message posted to http://e360.yale.edu.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/content/feature.msp?id=2029