Environmental Precautionary Principle
Precautionary principle approach to the environment has taken a center stage in the recent years as it has stirred quite a debate on its applicability. Particularly at the epitome of the argument are Nancy Myers, who advocates for the approach and Bernard Goldstein who has taken an opposing idea of the whole idea. Nancy Myersargues that despite the principle giving some sense of uncertainty relative to the scientific risk, it becomes the indispensable environmental policy (Myers, 2000). She further asserts that the absence of scientific assurance should not be a benchmark to postpone cost-effective measures for environmental conservation.
On the other hand, Bernard Goldstein’s has taken issues with this approach as he claims that it offers threat to the toxicological science. He argues that despite the approach having some valuable potential, it poses a significant risk to science as the toxicological balance unfavorably Easton A.T. (2007). This consequentially becomes a risk hazard to the public health and social justice.
Bernard Goldstein’s concern is much anchored on the vague fear of the unknown unlike the Myer’s assertion who believes that quick though uncertain measures are necessary to prevent further environmental degradation. By taking an objective position, Bernard Goldstein’s arguments hold much water. It is riskier to go for the uncertain approach because its impacts on science may be grave such as causing deadly effect and even extinction of some organisms.
Easton, T. & Easton A.T. (2007). Taking Sides: Environmental Issues. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin
Myers, N. (March 2000). Science and Environmental Health Network. Illinois: Weaver