The Precautionary Principle Under Fire

Read, Rupert; O’Riordan, Tim

doi:10.1080/00139157.2017.1350005

Cited by 42 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If that were not the case, the protection provided by basic rights would run empty. Human rights thus contain a precautionary principle, even beyond codification [2,6,140]. The connection to human rights makes it clear: the bigger the impending damage in its occurrence, the more ambitious the necessary protection measures have to be.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Wieding¹,

Stubenrauch

Ekardt

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Most scenarios on instruments limiting global warming in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit of the Paris Agreement rely on overshooting the emissions threshold, thus requiring the application of negative emission technologies later on. Subsequently, the debate on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) (frequently subsumed under “geoengineering”) has been reinforced. Yet, it does not determine normatively whether those are legally valid approaches to climate protection. After taking a closer look at the scope of climate scenarios and SRM methods compiling current research and opinions on SRM, this paper analyses the feasibility of geoengineering and of SRM in particular under international law. It will be shown that from the perspective of human rights, the Paris Agreement, and precautionary principle the phasing-out of fossil fuels and the reduction in consumption of livestock products as well as nature-based approaches such as sustainable—and thus climate and biodiversity-smart—forest, peatland, and agricultural management strongly prevail before geoengineering and atmospheric SRM measures in particular. However, as all of the atmospheric SRM methods are in their development phase, governance options to effectively frame further exploration of SRM technologies are proposed, maintaining that respective technologies thus far are not a viable means of climate protection.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Wieding¹,

Stubenrauch

Ekardt

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prudent responsibility is a reliable alternative to guide the actions when complexity and uncertainties prevail, as in complex-adaptive social-ecological systems. Prudent responsibility is an upgrade of an ethic of the 'Precautionary Principle', which demands that uncertainty must not be a reason for inaction [58]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw diverse ways of managing the fight against the disease, conflicting scientific results, and, at the decision-making level, the struggle between the health and economy.…”

Section: Pandemical Geoethics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics

Marone¹,

Böhle²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geoscientists developed geoethics, an intra-disciplinary field of applied philosophical studies, during the last decade. Reaching beyond the sphere of professional geosciences, it led to professional, cultural, and philosophical approaches to handle the social-ecological structures of our planet ‘wherever human activities interact with the Earth system’. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 and considering geoscientists’ experiences dealing with disasters (related to hazards like tsunamis, floods, climate changes.), this essay (1) explores the geoethical approach, (2) re-casts geoethics within western philosophical systems, such as the Kantian imperatives, Kohlberg scale of moral adequacy, Jonas’ imperative of responsibility, and (3) advances a ‘geoethical thesis’. The latter takes the form of a hypothesis of a much broader scope of geoethics than initially envisioned. That hypothesis appears by suspecting a relationship between the relative successes in the COVID-19 battle with the positioning of agents (individual, collective, institutional) into ethical frameworks. The turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for the transfer of experiences between different disciplinary domains to further sustainable governance, hence generalising the geoethical approach. It is emphasized that only when behaving as responsible and knowledgeable citizens, then people of any trade (including [geo-]scientists) can transgress the boundaries of ordinary governance practices with legitimacy.

show abstract

“…We describe in this chapter how tobacco companies “re-inform” (Barry 2005 ) their products into “ safer nicotine products,” in the form of e-cigarettes with a variety of chemical tastes and a diversity of inhaling devices. 1 An epidemic of vaping-related lung disease occurred, which appears to have been caused by the chemical adjuvant used in the devices, an epidemic that could have been prevented if the precautionary principle—a cautious strategy of pausing and reviewing before allowing new chemicals on the market—had been adopted by governmental food and drug agencies for this new category of chemical device (MacKendrick 2018 ; Read and O’Riordan 2017 ). Young people value the new vaping technology because it allows for a continuation of social bonding through shared substance use (Duff 2004 ; Pilkington 2007 ; van Schipstal et al 2016 ), the opportunity to experiment with new kinds of inhaling techniques and devices, and the opportunity to experience different flavors.…”

Section: In Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical Breath

Hardon¹

2020

Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical Breath presents two focused ethnographies that look at the relationship between young people and the inhaling of tobacco and synthetic cannabinoids. The first comes from a group of young people in Paris who smoke electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), who refer to themselves as “vapoteurs,” and the second comes from a group of young people in Makassar who smoke synthetic cannabinoids. The young people partaking in these popular practices value the social bonding they experience; they are also bombarded with social media messages encouraging the use of these products. And both face harms that may increase the precariousness of their lives: the Makassarian youth face imprisonment if discovered, and the health consequences of these synthetics are not fully understood. Similarly, the Parisian youth also risk lung damage, as vaping, while advertised as “safer” and sought out as a means to reduce the harms associated with cigarette smoke, exposes consumers to chemicals that either are understudied or known to be threats to health. The chapter concludes by pointing how these young people’s lives would benefit from sensible government regulation.

show abstract

The Precautionary Principle Under Fire

Cited by 42 publications

References 6 publications

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics

Chemical Breath

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About