Comments on: Good Intelligence

By: Tom Fiddaman

Tom Fiddaman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:54:50 +0000

I agree that it’s a fairly useless rhetorical device. It may work when communicating with someone who shares the above unstated assumptions, but in broader debates it quickly gets transplanted to situations where the analogy breaks down. It seems to me that it ought to be straightforward to come up with a clearer formulation that could guide action, though perhaps it would be much narrower.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:30:31 +0000

Tom-

Thanks, the malleability of the PP is one reason why many scholars (myself included) have determined that the PP is a useful one to dress up ones values, but not really an effective guide to collective action.

By: Tom Fiddaman

Tom Fiddaman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:12:54 +0000

Roger -

Word substitution sounds good, but all it proves is that the Rio PP statement isn’t fully specified. There are two crucial assumptions underlying the PP:
- the entity to be influenced by action is benign if undisturbed
- there are a priori reasons to think that the action harms the entity
These make some sense if you’re talking about release of an endocrine disruptor into an aquatic ecosystem. They don’t hold at all in Iraq; the two situations aren’t even remotely parallel.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:11:50 +0000

Tom-

A more common interpretation of the PP holds that uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. Here is what the 1992 Rio declaration of the environment says:

“in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. 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 environmental degradation”

Substitute a few words and you have:

“in order to protect NATIONAL SECURITY, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty ON WMDs shall not be used as a reason for postponing PREEMPTIVE measures to prevent WMD PROLIFERATION”

By: Tom Fiddaman

Tom Fiddaman — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:17:43 +0000

Since when does preemptive strike = precautionary principle?

Setting aside the fact that the PP is normally regarded as an environmental principle, it’s about avoiding an action when there’s a priori reason to suspect harmful consequences. One could better argue that going to war in Iraq was a violation of the precautionary principle.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:07:56 +0000

Steven- Indeed, that is exactly the argument I make in THB . . . get your copy today;-)

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:18:47 +0000

Going to war in Iraq was the precautionary principle in practice.

BTW. I predicted 5K US combat troup deaths before the war started.

How’d I do?