Critical but not urgent: how the precautionary principle applies to climate policy

It’s quite common for policymakers to link their actions with the broader fight to stabilize the climate.  Because this fight is desperate, with existential consequences, the implication is that scrutiny of these actions should be more forgiving than usual.

But in many situations, so-called climate-related policies have no bearing on the outcome of the fight.  

When evaluating policies or the performance of officials, it’s critical that we draw a sharp distinction between those aimed at securing climate salvation for the sake of humanity and those that are not.  There are strong arguments to support bold – possibly even reckless – proposals in the former category, but those in the latter should be subjected to the same standards applied to other important areas of public policy.

The need for bolder-than-usual action on climate change is underpinned by the precautionary principle.  The clock is ticking on global warming and the consequences are so severe that we cannot wait for the results of feasibility studies and the findings of endless review committees before acting.  

Policies designed this way are more likely to fail, of course, but we have little choice since waiting until we have all the data to hand will guarantee a catastrophic failure.  We must act even when the proposed actions may be ineffective.  Policymakers willing to take these bold steps should be cut some slack by the citizenry, even in situations where the policies ultimately fail.

But the precautionary principle only applies to a subset of policies with the word “climate” in the title.  If the principle does not apply in a particular policy area, we should demand the aforementioned feasibility studies and be prepared to hold the feet of politicians and officials to the fire if they happen to screw up.  Citing climate change should not be a universal “get out of jail free” card to excuse any climate-related instance of government incompetence.