The precautionary principle–an underlying justification often espoused by planners in Elbert County to excuse repressive zoning–has a number of systemic problems, according to Goklany.
Can the Precautionary Principle Manage Risks Effectively? by Indur M. Goklany
- “[T]he precautionary principle . . . based on concentrating on its environmental costs while downplaying its public health benefits, fuels suspicions that the principle can be used (or abused) to cherry pick which risks one may focus on during regulatory inquiry and regulation.”
- “[C]ompanies. . .protect themselves from liability and lawsuits by seeking some level of governmental approval, bolstered by the desire to avoid unfavorable publicity. . . “
- “[L]arger companies, in particular, actively court regulation since that would lead to higher barriers to entry into the market for smaller, possibly more innovative upstarts.”
- “[L]egislative bodies, government agencies and their officers often seek to expand their power, and future employment possibilities, by filling regulatory vacuums.”
- “[N]on-specialists rely on error-prone “mental shortcuts” such as assigning higher probabilities to types of hazards they can readily recall, . . . an emotionally-driven tendency toward adopting the more alarming of competing narratives regarding a hazard (“alarmist bias” ). Moreover, today’s technology frequently detects chemicals to levels at which health impacts cannot be reliably replicated, . . . but since absence of future harm is unprovable, they resort to their mental shortcuts to interpret the significance of such low. . .levels.”
- “[A]n examination of all relevant risks and options might itself lead to “paralysis by analysis.”
- “[A]ny policy, regulation or action (or “policy”, for brevity) predicated on the [precautionary] principle should not increase overall environmental and public health risks. In fact, the principle should favor those policies that would reduce overall risks the most.”
All of the above systemic problems with the precautionary principle must be actively mitigated to prevent unsound public policy and unjustified regulation. But in Elbert County — ignoring public health benefits from development and improved standards of living, regulators advancing their careers, the use of regulations for anti-competitive outcomes, amateur citizen planners reacting to alarmist political positions — the only safeguard we have to inhibit planners from practicing some or all of the above corruptions is the Board of County Commissioners itself.
“I am most concerned about demonstrating how a wrongly conceived precautionary principle applied to the dangers arising from the use of coal or nuclear fuel–that is, without a consistent, detailed, and thorough cost-benefit analysis–leads to solutions that are utterly ineffective and will put a disproportionate burden on our future. In real life, there is always a trade-off–even for caution. That trade-off tends to be most expensive. To argue the contrary would be irresponsible populism.” Vaclav Klaus