Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (7 page)

I have put “precautionary principle” in quotation marks above because it is not a principle. A principle is something you do as a rule, something you are not supposed to defy. If we actually followed something called the precautionary principle, we would never get out of bed in the morning for fear of the many risks involved in daily activity. We would certainly never voluntarily get into an automobile or cross a busy street. Yes, following such a doctrine sounds very high-minded and “principled” but it is simply not a very useful guide to daily life.

The precautionary principle stems from the idea that you don’t need absolute proof of harm to ban a practice, chemical, or technology. So if one argues there is no proof that a certain chemical
does
cause harm, that is not sufficient. Activists will demand that the chemical’s manufacturer prove it
does not
cause harm. This is a scientific impossibility so it’s “Gotcha.” Then the activists point to some unproven “link” between the chemical and an abnormality relating to sex organs or cancer, preferably both, the precautionary principle is invoked, and development is halted.

Greenpeace has been a leading advocate of the precautionary principle and has succeeded in having it enshrined in a number of international and national regulations. But a search of the Greenpeace International website does not reveal a very precise definition of what it thinks the principle is.
[5]
Greenpeace seems content to simply invoke the precautionary principle as if it is self-explanatory, when in fact there are many facets and angles to this idea. Is it enough simply to express the slightest doubt in order to stop producing new chemicals and technologies and grind everything to a halt? What degree of “uncertainty” is required before the principle kicks in? How does one measure “degree of uncertainty”? How are the benefits of doing something weighed against the risks of not doing it? Suppose you invent a genetically modified rice plant that can prevent blindness in 250,000 children each year, but Greenpeace says that planting the rice might pose a risk to the environment? Should Greenpeace have to prove the risk, or should it just have to blurt out “precautionary principle” to win the debate? And who is in charge of interpreting the precautionary principle on a case-by-case basis?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but Greenpeace doesn’t even want us to see the tip. It wants to be the final arbiter of all human activity. Many scholarly works have been written on the subject of the precautionary principle. For example, Indur Goklany has done a good job of explaining the concept in his book
[6]
and in his essays.
[7]

A much more useful term is the
precautionary approach
. This is not a principle but rather a way of thinking and an attitude toward how we do things. It is the opposite of recklessness and requires every stone be turned in considering the safety of doing something new. In a simple sense it is a bit like safely crossing the road. We want to cross the road because we may find an opportunity on the other side. But we should always look both ways, make sure we have steady footing, and look both ways again before we set forth. We look, and the coast is clear, so off we go. Still it remains possible that, once we are halfway across the road, a jetliner or a thunderbolt may hurtle out of the sky and kill us. That is the unforeseen risk of crossing the road.

This example illustrates that there is no such thing as zero risk. The unexpected is always a possibility no matter how carefully we try to rule out risks. Some things remain unpredictable and can only be learned from experience, sometimes the hard way. This is perhaps the most important reason why the precautionary principle is an obstacle to progress rather than a safety feature. It can be used to block any activity at the whim of the enforcer. Strictly interpreted we would never be allowed to cross the road because we might be hit by lightning on the way to the other side. The so-called precautionary principle gives weight to the argument that nothing new should be attempted. This is no way to bring an end to war, poverty, disease, famine, or suffering. It is a blueprint for stagnation and the status quo, yet to adopt a precautionary approach is reasonable.

Activists tend to look at only one side of the equation when it comes to risk. Take the example of adding chlorine to drinking water. Some argue that because chlorine can combine with organic matter in the water, there is a slight chance a carcinogenic substance may be produced. This might cause one death in a million people over their lifetimes. Why would we allow the possibility that someone might die if we add chlorine to drinking water? Because thousands will almost certainly die if we don’t. Waterborne diseases like cholera can infect entire communities if the cholera bacteria gets into the water supply. As recently as 1991 there was a serious cholera outbreak in Peru that caused more than 250,000 people to become ill and that killed 1600. Lack of sanitation and insufficient chlorination of water supplies were the causes. Greenpeace has a policy to ban chlorine worldwide. This is an irresponsible position.

When applying the precautionary approach we must compare the risks and benefits of doing something with the risks and benefits of not doing that thing. This is not an exact science. Risks and uncertainties are difficult, sometimes impossible, to quantify. Therefore we need to take a reasoned approach, weighing all the factors on both sides and coming to an educated conclusion. It will always be necessary to make judgments on the relative merits of each case. But the last thing we should do is shackle ourselves to a principle that prevents action even when the benefits obviously outweigh the risks. So remember, whenever you see the precautionary principle being invoked to prevent a new process or product from being adopted, look a little deeper into the reasoning, or lack thereof.

[1]
. World Commission on Environment and Development,
Our Common Future
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

[2]
. Riceland Habitat, California Rice Commission, http://www.calrice.org/Environment/Wildlife/Shorebird+Habitat.htm

[3]
. Larry West, “Indoor Pollution from Cooking Fires Kills 1.5 Million People Annually,” http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/stovepollution.htm

[4]
. James Gorman, “Scientists Predict Widespread Extinction by Global Warming,”
New York Times
, January 8, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/science/08CLIM.html

[5]
. Greenpeace International, “The Precautionary Principle,” July 2, 2004, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle

[6]
. Indur M. Goklany,
The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal
(Washington, DC, Cato Institute, 2001).

[7]
. Indur M. Goklany, “From Precautionary Principle to Risk-Risk Analysis,”
Nature Biotechnology
20 (November 2002), http://goklany.org/library/Nature%20Biotech%202002%20v20%201075.pdf

Chapter 2 -
Our Present Predicament

Throughout the course of this book we will examine all the key environmental issues that make up the movement’s agenda today. These include hot topics like genetic engineering, climate change, species extinction, and toxic waste. I will document the gradual extremism that has taken over the environmental movement that I helped launch, eventually compelling me to leave Greenpeace and make my own way down the environmental trail. And I will suggest sensible policy alternatives for a sustainable future.

I will discuss specific environmental issues, sometimes in detail. But the main point I will make is that environmentalism has gone off the rails and has become an apocalyptic religion that is self-defeating and demoralizing. If society is to tackle the very real and difficult challenges ahead, we must find and implement sensible and pragmatic solutions. Today’s environmental movement, marked by intolerance and shrill tirades against capitalism and globalization, is simply not up to the job at hand. In fact, it has become a roadblock to meeting these challenges. In this chapter I will use the issues of climate change and energy production to show how the environmental movement has become disabled by its own ideology.

Every day we are bombarded with dire predictions of ecological collapse and social disintegration. We are told there is no time for debate; radical action is necessary now if we wish to avoid an apocalypse of biblical proportions. No one paints a negative picture better than Robert Kennedy Jr.:

Our generation faces the greatest moral and political crisis in human history. Will we take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic global warming or will we doom our children to a new Dark Ages in a world that is biologically and economically impoverished and defined by ever diminishing quality of life?…The scientific debate is over except among a few polluter-financed junk scientists and ideologically blinded flat Earthers.
[1]

The question that might pop into a reader’s mind: “Is this a load of sensationalist hogwash or is the world really coming to an end?” Some would say that the writer has an impressive pedigree, and an Ivy League education. His occupation as a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., gives him access to both what you know and who you know. At the very least he must be sincere in his fears, even if they are exaggerated, right?

Many scientists and nearly all environmental groups believe global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Many other scientists believe the present global warming trend is a natural phenomenon similar to the other warming and cooling periods that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. It is not possible to “scientifically prove” which opinion is correct because there are too many variables and we are talking about predicting the future, a difficult task for the simplest of issues. And climate change and global warming are anything but simple—this is one of the most complex and challenging areas in science today. As I stated earlier, we should remember that the crystal ball is actually a mythical object. And it is possible either or both positions are partly right; that there is a natural warming trend that is being accelerated by our fossil fuel emissions.

In later chapters we will explore the complexities of climate science and policy, but in this chapter I want to focus on the policy dilemma we face due to the environmental movement’s positions on climate change and energy production. These positions have greatly influenced environmental and energy policies at national and international levels. To sum up the present predicament, most environmental groups oppose the continued use of fossil fuels, but they also oppose or ignore nearly all the available and affordable alternatives. They have adopted a policy framework on energy and climate change that is logically inconsistent, technically impossible, and entirely self-defeating.

Many environmentalists believe renewable wind energy can help displace fossil fuels and their greenhouse gas emissions. A large wind energy facility has been proposed for an offshore site near Martha’s Vineyard at Cape Cod. Robert Kennedy Jr., with the help of his friends in Congress, is leading a campaign to defeat the proposal. He claims the location is inappropriate.
[2]
It is in fact an excellent location as the wind blows regularly; it is out of shipping lanes, and far enough from shore not to cause noise pollution.

How can someone who thinks the planet will self-destruct if we don’t halt global warming be opposed to some windmills six miles from the shore? And even though Greenpeace claims to support wind energy it actively opposes another wind farm in the Western Isles of Scotland because it is “too big.”
[3]
I don’t think Greenpeace will stop global warming with small windmills.

This is the predicament we all find ourselves in today. Not so much that the world is coming to an end but in the words of the late Michael Crichton: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”
[4]

It all started with computers and the 1960s adage, “garbage in, garbage out.” That was nothing compared with today’s Internet frenzy. Just search the Internet for “mass extinction” and you will find we are in the midst of the apocalypse already, in case you hadn’t noticed.
[5]
According to some authoritative-looking websites and ecology research groups, 50,000 species are going extinct every year and 100 years from now 50 percent of all species will be gone. Never mind that there isn’t a shred of evidence to support such claims, it makes good grist for sensationalists, doomsday prophets, and CNN. Not coincidentally, it is good grist for milling up research grant renewals.