Making Sense of the Making Sense of the Precautionary Principle (and Its Precautionary Principle (and Its

Critics)Critics)

Stephen M. GardinerStephen M. Gardiner

University of Washington, SeattleUniversity of Washington, Seattle

&&

Princeton UniversityPrinceton University

Two Opposing AttitudesTwo Opposing Attitudes

EnthusiastsEnthusiasts: (usually pro-environment, and : (usually pro-environment, and especially European) the PP is a foundational especially European) the PP is a foundational principle of environmental protectionprinciple of environmental protection

NaysayersNaysayers: (usually pro-business, and especially : (usually pro-business, and especially Americans) the PP is hopelessly vague, stupidly Americans) the PP is hopelessly vague, stupidly myopic, and ultimately irrationalmyopic, and ultimately irrational

The Story of the Great DivideThe Story of the Great Divide

Clash of World ViewsClash of World Views

Rooted in a Deep Value ConflictRooted in a Deep Value Conflict

Undermines Global Environmental PoliticsUndermines Global Environmental Politics

The Future looks BleakThe Future looks Bleak

Today’s PaperToday’s Paper

TopicTopic: Is there a Great Theoretical Divide, : Is there a Great Theoretical Divide, resting on a Deep clash of World Views resting on a Deep clash of World Views and Values?and Values?

ThesisThesis: No. The Dispute about the PP itself : No. The Dispute about the PP itself is Shallow. is Shallow.

Part IPart I

The Great DivideThe Great Divide

Naysayers (1)Naysayers (1)

Theoretical Objections to the Precautionary Theoretical Objections to the Precautionary Principle:Principle:

• Extremely ConservativeExtremely Conservative• MyopicMyopic• VacuousVacuous• Theoretically NaïveTheoretically Naïve

Naysayers (2)Naysayers (2)

Practical Objections to the Precautionary Principle:Practical Objections to the Precautionary Principle:

• Extremely Conservative Extremely Conservative false faith in science false faith in science• Myopic Myopic costly, ineffective & biased against future costly, ineffective & biased against future

prosperityprosperity• Vacuous Vacuous open to corruption and abuse open to corruption and abuse• Theoretically Naïve Theoretically Naïve obscures the choices that need obscures the choices that need

to be madeto be made

Enthusiasts (1)Enthusiasts (1)

Theoretical Objections to Cost-Benefit Theoretical Objections to Cost-Benefit Analysis:Analysis:

• Extremely ConservativeExtremely Conservative• MyopicMyopic• VacuousVacuous• Theoretically NaïveTheoretically Naïve

Enthusiasts (2)Enthusiasts (2)

Practical Objections to CBA:Practical Objections to CBA:

• Extremely Conservative Extremely Conservative false faith in science false faith in science• Myopic Myopic costly, ineffective & biased against the costly, ineffective & biased against the

futurefuture• Vacuous Vacuous open to corruption and abuse open to corruption and abuse• Theoretically Naïve Theoretically Naïve obscures the choices that need obscures the choices that need

to be madeto be made

Part IIPart II

Basic Characteristics of the Basic Characteristics of the Precautionary PrinciplePrecautionary Principle

Wingspread StatementWingspread Statement

““When an activity raises When an activity raises threats of harm to human threats of harm to human health or the environment, health or the environment, precautionary measures precautionary measures should be taken even if should be taken even if some cause and effect some cause and effect relationships are not fully relationships are not fully established scientifically.”established scientifically.”

Three ComponentsThree Components

• Threat of HarmThreat of Harm

• Uncertainty of Impact and CausalityUncertainty of Impact and Causality

• Precautionary ResponsePrecautionary Response

•What counts as a threat of harm? Is any potential harm, no matter how small, sufficient to trigger the precautionary principle?

•How does uncertainty figure into this? Is any level of uncertainty sufficient to trigger the principle, or only a high level? Is there any level of uncertainty which would be so great that the principle would be unreasonable?

•What counts as a precautionary measure? Crossing one’s fingers? Warning people of the threat? Taking measures to reduce impact of the effects? Taking measures to prevent the effects? Taking measures to eliminate the cause of the effects?

Part IIIPart III

A Core Precautionary PrincipleA Core Precautionary Principle

The Maximin PrincipleThe Maximin Principle

Suppose that in a given situation you have two actions, A and B, available to you. If you choose A, then there are two possible outcomes: either (A1) you will receive $100, or (A2) you will be shot. If you choose B, there are also two possible outcomes: either (B1) you will receive $50, or (B2) you will receive a slap on the wrist.

Maximin Approach: Choose BMaximin Approach: Choose B

Because: (A2) [getting shot] is the worst outcome on

option A and (B2) [getting a slap on the wrist] is the worst option on plan B; and

(A2) is worse than (B2).

Basic ObjectionBasic Objection

Harsanyi 1975

“Suppose you live in New York City and are offered two jobs at the same time. One is a tedious and badly paid job in New York City itself, while the other is a very interesting and well-paid job in Chicago. But the catch is that, if you wanted the Chicago job, you would have to take a plane from New York to Chicago (e.g., because this job would have to be taken up the very next day). Therefore there is a very small but positive probability that you might be killed in a plane accident.”

Harsanyi 1975

“If you took the maximin principle seriously then you could not ever cross the street (after all, you might be hit by a car); you could never drive over a bridge (after all, it might collapse); you could never get married (after all, it might end in a disaster), etc. If anybody really acted this way he would soon end up in a mental institution.”

Four Conditions for Applying a Four Conditions for Applying a Maximin PrincipleMaximin Principle

Decision-makers:

Either lack, or have reason to sharply discount,information about the probabilities of thepossible outcomes of their actions.

Care relatively little for potential gains thatmight be made above the minimum that can beguaranteed by the maximin approach.

Face unacceptable alternatives.

• Consider only scientifically realistic outcomes

*Health Warning**Health Warning*

I do not want to claim that Rawls has necessarily gotthe criteria exactly right. For my purposes, it wouldbe enough merely to show that the criterial approachitself is reasonable, and that Rawls has the right kindof criteria. For this would be sufficient to suggestthat some form of core precautionary principle isdefensible, and worthy of further investigation. I twould defeat, or at least postpone, the standardobjections about the precautionary principle’s beingextreme or vacuous.

Myopic?Myopic?

• The CPP is not exclusive, but inclusive: it includes The CPP is not exclusive, but inclusive: it includes consideration of all kinds of outcomes, including consideration of all kinds of outcomes, including continuing with the status quo. continuing with the status quo.

The four conditions The four conditions help to explain why actual help to explain why actual advocates of the precautionary principle may advocates of the precautionary principle may appear to be applying it in an exclusive way.appear to be applying it in an exclusive way.

Extremely Conservative?Extremely Conservative?

CPP Replies:CPP Replies:

• Evidence: Scientific RealismEvidence: Scientific Realism

Response: Safe ExitsResponse: Safe Exits

“Without any scientific grounds, but on the basis of the so-called precautionary principle - that is, if we can’t prove absolutely thatit’s harmless, let’s ban it - the EU has prevented GM foods fromEntering its markets”

Vacuous?Vacuous?

The Need for InterpretationThe Need for Interpretation

Not UnusualNot Unusual

Clear Cases, including the paradigm Clear Cases, including the paradigm environmental onesenvironmental ones

Explaining the DisputesExplaining the Disputes

Climate ChangeClimate Change

Scientific Respectability: Past the ThresholdScientific Respectability: Past the Threshold

Absence of Probabilities: Inherent Complexity of Absence of Probabilities: Inherent Complexity of the Climate Systemthe Climate System

Unacceptable Outcomes: Reason to believe the Unacceptable Outcomes: Reason to believe the costs may be high and possibly catastrophiccosts may be high and possibly catastrophic

Care Little for Gains: Costs are High in Absolute Care Little for Gains: Costs are High in Absolute Terms, but Manageable within the Global SystemTerms, but Manageable within the Global System

Disputes About Climate Disputes About Climate ChangeChange

• UncertaintyUncertainty: sceptics against probabilities: sceptics against probabilities

• Care Little for GainsCare Little for Gains: global poverty argument: global poverty argument

• Unacceptable OutcomesUnacceptable Outcomes: IPCC overreach; CO2 : IPCC overreach; CO2 fertilization; shift to solar by 2060fertilization; shift to solar by 2060

Part IVPart IV

The Core Precautionary Principle The Core Precautionary Principle &&

The Great Theoretical DivideThe Great Theoretical Divide

Conflict with Expected Utility Conflict with Expected Utility Theory?Theory?

EUT theory might be incorrect. EUT theory might be incorrect.

Much more importantly, it is not clear that Much more importantly, it is not clear that EUT should resist the fourEUT should resist the four criteria. This is criteria. This is because the controversy about maximin because the controversy about maximin takes place at a level which need not takes place at a level which need not threaten wider theory. threaten wider theory.

““Of course, Rawls is right when he argues that in Of course, Rawls is right when he argues that in somesome situations the maximin principle will lead to situations the maximin principle will lead to

reasonable decisions.” reasonable decisions.”

““But closer inspection will show that this will But closer inspection will show that this will happen only in those situations where the happen only in those situations where the

maximin principle is essentially maximin principle is essentially equivalentequivalent to the to the expected-utility maximization principle (in the expected-utility maximization principle (in the

sense that the policies suggested by the former sense that the policies suggested by the former will yield expected utility levels as high, or almost will yield expected utility levels as high, or almost as high, as the policies suggested by the latter as high, as the policies suggested by the latter

would yield).”would yield).”

A Picture of the DebateA Picture of the Debate

There are paradigm cases of disaster There are paradigm cases of disaster avoidance. avoidance.

There is a strong presumption that the There is a strong presumption that the avoidance of disaster in these cases is rational. avoidance of disaster in these cases is rational.

Serious theories of rational choice are motivated Serious theories of rational choice are motivated to accommodate this strong presumptionto accommodate this strong presumption

The real dispute between rival theories will likely The real dispute between rival theories will likely occur outside of the domain constituted by these occur outside of the domain constituted by these paradigm cases.paradigm cases.

An Important PossibilityAn Important Possibility

The purpose of the CPP is to mark out the The purpose of the CPP is to mark out the paradigm casesparadigm cases

CPP and EUT might not be competitor theoriesCPP and EUT might not be competitor theories

Nevertheless, CPP might impose a burden of Nevertheless, CPP might impose a burden of proof on wider theoriesproof on wider theories

CBA and RationalityCBA and Rationality

““To be rational To be rational meansmeans to make decisions to make decisions according to the cost-benefit criterion - that is, to according to the cost-benefit criterion - that is, to take an action if and only if its benefits exceed take an action if and only if its benefits exceed

its costs.”its costs.”

“… “… some form of implicit or explicit cost-benefit some form of implicit or explicit cost-benefit calculation lies behind calculation lies behind almost everyalmost every human human

action, object, and behavior.”action, object, and behavior.”

““Economics teaches us how to identify the costs Economics teaches us how to identify the costs and benefits and benefits that really matterthat really matter.”.”

Two ObjectionsTwo Objections

Not a matter of meaningNot a matter of meaning

Conflation: Good Reasons vs. Cost-BenefitConflation: Good Reasons vs. Cost-Benefit

CBA and UtilitarianismCBA and Utilitarianism

Direct vs. Indirect UtilitarianismDirect vs. Indirect Utilitarianism CBA is DirectCBA is Direct Most Utilitarians favor IndirectMost Utilitarians favor Indirect Enthusiasts of the PP say that CBA has Enthusiasts of the PP say that CBA has

failed and that the CPP will do betterfailed and that the CPP will do better Utility and Non-utilitariansUtility and Non-utilitarians

CBA and the Paradigm CasesCBA and the Paradigm Cases

““Cost-benefit analysis, when faced with Cost-benefit analysis, when faced with uncertainties as big as these, would simply be uncertainties as big as these, would simply be

self-deception. And in any case, it could not be self-deception. And in any case, it could not be a successful exercise, because the issue of our a successful exercise, because the issue of our responsibility to future generations is too poorly responsibility to future generations is too poorly understood, and too little accommodated in the understood, and too little accommodated in the

current economic theory.” current economic theory.”

(Broome 1992, p. 19)(Broome 1992, p. 19)

ConclusionsConclusionsThere is no Great Theoretical Divide about the There is no Great Theoretical Divide about the Precautionary Principle as suchPrecautionary Principle as such

Proponents of CBA may have good reason to accept Proponents of CBA may have good reason to accept the CPPthe CPP

Some of their objections may even unwittingly invoke itSome of their objections may even unwittingly invoke it

But if they do reject it, they must come up with But if they do reject it, they must come up with something else - and something that responds to the something else - and something that responds to the charge of self-deceptioncharge of self-deception