Bitcoin Is Massively Polluting the Earth — And We Should All Be Scared
4 stars based on
68 reviews
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach generally defines actions on issues bitcoin debate pollution to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.
These protections can be relaxed only if bitcoin debate pollution scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
In some legal systems, as in law of the European Unionthe application bitcoin debate pollution the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law. Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in when the World Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assemblywhile its first international implementation was in through the Montreal Protocol. Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.
The concept bitcoin debate pollution principle" is generally considered to have arisen in English from a translation of the German term Vorsorgeprinzip in the s.
InKonrad von Moltke described bitcoin debate pollution German concept for a British audience, which he translated into English as the precautionary principle. The concepts underpinning the precautionary principle pre-date the term's inception. For example, bitcoin debate pollution essence of the principle is captured in a number of cautionary aphorisms such as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "better safe than sorry", and "look before you leap".
The bitcoin debate pollution principle may also be interpreted as the evolution of the "ancient-medical principle" of " first, do no harm " to apply to institutions and institutional decision-making processes rather than individuals. In economics, the Precautionary Principle has been analysed in terms of "the effect on rational decision-making", of "the interaction of irreversibility " and " uncertainty ".
Authors such as Epstein [4] and Arrow and Fischer [5] show that "irreversibility of possible future consequences" creates a "quasi- option effect" which should induce a " risk -neutral" society to favour current decisions that allow for more flexibility in the future.
Many definitions of the precautionary principle exist: Precaution may be defined as "caution in advance", "caution practised in the context of uncertainty", or informed prudence. Two ideas lie at the core of the principle: One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conferenceor " Earth Summit " in The principle 15 of the Rio Declaration notes: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent bitcoin debate pollution degradation.
The Bitcoin debate pollution Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarises the principle this way: In Februarythe Commission of the European Communities noted in a Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle that, "The precautionary principle is not defined in the Treaties of the European Unionwhich prescribes it [the Precautionary Principle] only once — to protect the environment.
But in practice, its scope is much wider, and specifically where preliminary-objective-scientific-evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or [and] bitcoin debate pollution health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection [for what] chosen for the Community. The application of the precautionary principle is hampered by both lack of political will, [ citation needed ] as well as the wide range of interpretations placed on it.
One study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in treaties and nontreaty declarations. Stewart [13] reduced the precautionary principle to four basic versions:. In deciding how to apply the principle, one may use a bitcoin debate pollution analysis that factors in both the opportunity cost of not acting, and the option value of waiting for further bitcoin debate pollution before acting.
Strong precaution holds that regulation is required whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high.
The widely publicised Wingspread Declaration, from a meeting of environmentalists inis another example of the strong version. Weak precaution holds that lack of scientific evidence does not preclude action if damage would otherwise be serious and irreversible. According to a publication by the New Zealand Treasury Department. The weak version [of the Precautionary Principle] is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures to be taken in the face of uncertainty, but does not require them eg, Rio Declaration ; United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change To satisfy the threshold of harm, there must be some evidence relating to both the likelihood of occurrence and bitcoin debate pollution severity of consequences.
Some, but not all, require consideration of the costs of precautionary measures. Weak formulations do not preclude weighing bitcoin debate pollution against the costs. Factors other than scientific uncertainty, including economic considerations, may bitcoin debate pollution legitimate grounds for postponing action.
Under weak formulations, the requirement to justify the need for action the burden of proof generally falls on those advocating precautionary action. No mention is made of assignment of liability for environmental harm.
Strong versions justify or require precautionary measures and some also establish liability for environmental harm, which is effectively a strong form of "polluter pays". For example, the Earth Charter states: Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible bitcoin debate pollution liable for environmental harm.
Requiring proof of "no environmental harm" before any action proceeds implies the public is not prepared to accept any environmental risk, no matter what economic or social benefits may arise Peterson, At the extreme, such a requirement could involve bans and prohibitions on entire classes of potentially threatening activities or substances Cooney, Over time, there has been a gradual transformation of the precautionary principle from what appears in the Rio Declaration to a stronger form that arguably [by whom] acts as restraint on development in the absence of firm evidence that it will do no harm.
The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly inwas the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the Montreal Protocoland among other international treaties and declarations is reflected in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
No introduction to the precautionary principle would be complete without brief reference to the difference between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration states that: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
This means that it is compulsory, so a court can quash bitcoin debate pollution confirm a decision through the application of the precautionary principle. In this sense, the precautionary principle is not a simple idea or a desideratum but a source of law. This is the legal status of the precautionary principle in the European Union. On the other hand, an 'approach' usually does not have the same meaning, although in some particular cases an approach could be binding.
A precautionary approach is a particular 'lens' used to identify risk that every prudent person possesses Recuerda, [18]. On 2 Februarythe European Commission issued a Communication on the precautionary principle, [10] in which it adopted a procedure for the application of this concept, but without giving a detailed definition of it.
Paragraph 2 of article of the Lisbon Treaty states that. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. After the adoption of the Bitcoin debate pollution Commission's Communication on the precautionary principle, the principle has come to bitcoin debate pollution much EU policy, including areas beyond environmental policy.
As of it had been integrated into EU laws "in matters such as general product safety, the use bitcoin debate pollution additives for use in animal nutrition, the incineration of waste, and the regulation of genetically modified organisms".
In France, the Charter for the Environment contains a formulation of the precautionary principle article When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in order to preclude the occurrence of such damage.
InJapan tried to use the consideration of the precautionary principle in a WTO SPS Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures case, as Japan's requirement to test each variety of agricultural products apples, cherries, peaches, bitcoin debate pollution, apricots, pears, plums and quinces for the efficacy of treatment against codling moths was challenged.
This moth is a pest that does not occur in Japan, and whose introduction has the potential to cause serious damage. The United States claimed that it was not necessary to test each variety of a fruit for the efficacy of the treatment, and that this varietal testing requirement was unnecessarily burdensome. The most important Australian court case so far, due to its exceptionally detailed consideration of the precautionary principle, is Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council.
The Principle was summarised by reference to the NSW Protection of the Environment Administration Actwhich itself provides a good definition of the principle: In the application of the principle… decisions should be guided by: The most significant points of Justice Preston's decision are the following findings: A petition filed 17 Bitcoin debate pollution by environmental group Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist coalition Masipag Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura bitcoin debate pollution the Appellate court to stop the planting of Bt eggplant in test fields, saying bitcoin debate pollution impacts of such an undertaking to the environment, native crops and human health are still unknown.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition, citing the precautionary principle stating "when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be bitcoin debate pollution to avoid or diminish the threat.
The precautionary principle is often applied to biological fields because changes bitcoin debate pollution be easily contained and have the potential of being global. The principle has less relevance to contained fields such as aeronauticswhere the few people undergoing risk have given informed consent e.
In the case of technological innovation, containment of impact tends to be more difficult if that technology can self-replicate. Bill Joy emphasised the dangers of replicating genetic technology, nanotechnology, and robotic technology in his article in Wired" Why the future doesn't need us ", though he does not specifically cite the precautionary principle.
The application of the principle can be seen in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials to show bitcoin debate pollution new medications are safe. Application of the principle modifies the status of innovation and risk assessment: Thus, in the case of regulation of scientific research, there is a third party bitcoin debate pollution the scientist and the regulator: In an analysis concerning application of the precautionary principle to nanotechnologyChris Phoenix and Mike Treder posit that there are two forms bitcoin debate pollution the principle, which they call the "strict form" and the "active form".
Several natural resources like fish stocks are now managed by bitcoin debate pollution approach, through Harvest Bitcoin debate pollution Rules HCR based upon the precautionary principle. The figure indicates how the principle is implemented in the cod fisheries management proposed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
In classifying endangered speciesthe precautionary principle means that if there is doubt about an animal's or plant's exact conservation statusthe one that would cause the strongest protective measures to be realised should be chosen. Thus, a species like the silvery pigeon that might exist in considerable numbers and simply be under-recorded or bitcoin debate pollution just as probably be long extinct is not classified as "data deficient" or "extinct" which both do not require any protective action to be takenbut as "critically endangered" bitcoin debate pollution conservation status that confers the need for the strongest protectionwhereas the increasingly rare, but probably bitcoin debate pollution yet endangered emerald starling is classified as "data deficient", because there is urgent need for research to clarify its status rather than for conservation action to save it from extinction.
If, for example, a large ground-water body that people use for drinking water is contaminated by bacteria e-coli H7, campylobacter or leptospirosis and the source of contamination is strongly suspected to be dairy cows but the exact science is not yet able to provide absolute proof, the cows should be removed from the environment until they are proved, by the dairy industry, not to be the source or until that industry ensures that such contamination will not recur.
Critics of the principle use arguments similar to those against other formulations of technological conservatism. Strong formulations of the precautionary principle, without regard to its most basic provisions that it is to be applied only where risks are potentially high AND not bitcoin debate pollution calculable, applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, may rule out its own use.
Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide bitcoin debate pollution higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.
Because applications of bitcoin debate pollution formulations of the precautionary principle can be used to block innovation, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by precautionary principle because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealised. The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries.
The precautionary principle calls for action in the face of scientific uncertainty, but some formulations do not specify the minimal threshold of plausibility of risk that acts as a "triggering" condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Retrieved 25 September The Precautionary Principle in Germany: Quarterly Journal of Economics. An Economic Interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle ' ". Journal of Public Economics. Chapter 3, The precautionary principle: Marco Martuzzi and Joel A. Retrieved 29 October Retrieved 12 March
