It is always the last resort of a warmist who realises their case is futile; “we should act even if we are not sure, just in case”. This is the precautionary principle, which states that in cases where the science is uncertain, we should always rule in favour of the environment. This is often equated to an insurance policy and is advocated by Frank Gomez. He says that even skeptics can get on board with this as we are making an investment for our future, but lets think about it? Would we buy volcano insurance in a country that has no active volcanoes? Would we pay $1 million to insure our home worth no where near that? That is what so-called action entails. What will the carbon tax do to our economy? It will not move us into the future as Gillard and her cohorts claim, it will raise the cost of living and import our jobs overseas. Also, renewable energy is no way to run a modern economy.
An aside on Gomez’s article; he says there are two key questions on global warming. Whether we are raising the earth’s carbon dioxide levels (no one really argues otherwise) and the magnitude of the consequences. He neglects to mention the most critical aspect. Whether our emissions contribute to significant warming which in turn is suppose to lead to these nasty weather events.
The precautionary principle is also one that advocates ignorance. It says, lets make up our minds on what to do before we have the facts. Some may say it allows us to act decisively, getting the problem in time, but if we move our economy in a direction that will prove to be detrimental, then we were better off waiting for the facts.
When it comes down to it, we must weigh the positives with the negatives instead of mindlessly ruling in favour of the environment. The cost of acting versus the unlikely impacts of continuing to emit. When we look at it like this, we can see that the precautionary approach would be to gather the facts first before going in either direction completely uninformed.