The precautionary principle and risk–risk tradeoffs: a comment

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Indeed it would be absurd to say that a risk is ‘false’ because a superior technology or prevention strategy is available; it would be nonsensical, for example, to say that global climate change is ‘false’ or is ‘not a good example’ of a serious risk because it is ‘preventable’ through available superior alternative energy choices. A superior prevention method does not negate a risk as false, it responds to a real risk. Likewise, it is absurd to say that a risk–risk tradeoff is false or not a good example on the ground that superior alternatives are available.

2. But here HKT neglect the countervailing risks of alternatives to MTBE; they propose ethanol (432), saying nothing about its risks to biodiversity and climate change if forests are cleared to grow corn for ethanol (Searchinger et al. 2008).

3. HKT's offhand suggestion of ‘removal of breeding grounds’ (449, Appendix 1) means draining wetlands, a choice with environmental countervailing risks that HKT leave unanalyzed.