Fan of the precautionary principle

Tony Blair makes a stunning acknowledgement: that the science may not be “as certain as proponents suggest.” But that doesn’t stop him relying on the precautionary principle to urge a deal at Copenhagen:

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.

“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

So even though the science may be wrong, Copenhagen should press ahead regardless? In what other area of policy are the same criteria used? The “precaution” he advises will cost the developing world trillions of dollars, and set back standards of living decades. How about building underground bunkers for everyone on earth in case of an asteroid impact? Surely that’s just as deserving a cause – perhaps even more so given the number of unknown bodies in eccentric orbits? Or providing breathing apparatus in case there is a deadly viral mutation?

Funnily enough, it seems that TB is a fan of the precautionary principle – he just admitted he used it in relation to Saddam Hussein and WMD, and I can only begin to imagine the mess that admission will get him into… He should be more careful advocating it in future, especially when the costs of the precaution itself are huge.

Read it here.