THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROJECT
ONLINE CONSULTATION
| E-Conference Homepage | Contents |
| Next comment | Previous comment | Previous comment in thread | Next comment in thread |
From: Elery Hamilton-Smith
Affiliation: WCPA; Charles Sturt University
Remote Name: w47-64.wireless.alphalink.com.au
Time: 08:42:15 +0100
The assumptions of decison-makers are often not made clear, but can be inferred from their decisions. Perhaps we should aim to achive a principle parallel to that in most courts of law, where the person charged is assumed innocent until proven guilty. A parallel idea in environmental decision-making would be that the environment should be considered sacrosanct, and authority for change be granted when the proponent can provide evidence that within current knowledge and understanding, no significant harm will be caused; or that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that no no significant harm will be caused; or that any harm will be more than repaid by positive benefits. This probably relates also to the concern expressed about point 8 by one participant; it will take longer, but in this situation, haste is the path to environmental damage and to injustice.
[_borders/disc6_aftr.htm]