In a blog post on Grist.org titled “What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation?” the author, David Roberts, talks about the cost-benefit analysis of acting on climate change loosely using the Precautionary principle approach. Roberts puts society’s well being as the most imperative factor, he looks at who the costs will fall onto, and what sorts of alternatives there are to fighting global warming.
Roberts states that the total social cost ought to be the most important factor even considering that, in his own opinion, it is seemingly impossible to have a precise cost-benefit analysis to society. This closely follows the precautionary principle except Roberts does not conclude that the costs are insignificant knowing that there will be detrimental effects to human health thus going against the principle.
The author also examines the distribution of cost and benefits on certain parties and not just the sum total. He realizes that even when the overall costs will be low different regions, countries, and groups of people could potentially have higher costs and receive fewer benefits. Examining the effects on all parties is a key part of the principle but what Roberts fails to do is to clearly examine the alternatives. He briefly mentions that different alternatives should be considered but does not go into any further detail.
The precautionary principle is somewhat evident in Robert’s blog. He recognizes the effects on society are of most importance, even when the magnitude of the effects on society is not fully clear, and that individual parties will be affected differently. Although Roberts fails to conclude that if human harm is plausible then action should be immediate, and he does not examine specific alternatives to the problem, which are essential components of the Precautionary principle.
Referances:
Roberts, David. "What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation? | Grist." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary, Advice. 05 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.
I can sympathise with the view that the well being of society can in some cases be given priority, however i think that it is sad that as a society we view an excess of disposable income as something detrimental to our well-being. I can understand that having money is important in the world we like to but i think that as humans we must be responsible to contributing to finding the solutions for climate change, even if it means living within more modest means.
ReplyDelete