If you want to do something that people feel might be dangerous but have no proof…you have to proove it isn’t dangerous
so say cutting down rainforests…if you feel this may increases CO2 in the air…but cannot prove it then those cutting down the forest must prove it won’t increase CO2
No idea so I looked it up on wikipedia……The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
Yes i am as clueless! I think it means that you have to prove something is not dangerous if there is no evidence that it is.
What a good question..! I did not know about it until I searched for an answer to your question. So I learned something new too…!
It is a term in law designed to protect the public and/or the environment. The definition of this principle is that if something (an action by someone or a policy drafted by anyone) is suspected to be harmful to the public and/or the environment and there is no direct scientific proof that it is harmfull or not then it is the responsibility of whoever wants to carry this action or draft this policy to proove that no harmfull will be caused.
There are some great explanations in wikipedia on
Comments