What happens downstream?: Scott Mattoon's blog

I've gone toe to toe with plenty of climate change skeptics over the last year or so.  I felt I had pretty compelling arguments for why their denial arguments lacked merit.  I've become facile with responses to statements like these:

"We live in a world of risks.  The risk of climate change is akin to the risk of Earth being hit by an asteroid."

"Many scientists disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC."

"The costs of taking action on climate change are too high."

Of all the rebuttals I gave, none are as compelling or as simple as the case made by the chap in this YouTube video.  What he gives us is a very articulate and rational application of the precautionary principle, and uses it to effectively neutralize the climate change skeptics' reasons for inaction.

The precautionary principle says that, when confronted with reasonable doubt about the environmental, health, or social outcome of a particular action, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

Several governments have adopted policy based on the precautionary principle.  The EU, for example, banned the import of growth hormone injected beef from the U.S., even though they did not have specific proof of the ill effects of eating such beef.  (The ban was later ruled to be illegal by the WTO - a very un-precautionary decision.) 

The U.S. may be on the brink of adopting precautionary based emissions reduction legislation.  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted today to send a bill to the Senate that would cap GHG emissions in this country.  This bill is exactly the kind of action that the YouTube chap is referring to when he sets the context for "column A" in his 2x2 grid.  This grid, and the accompanying argument, is something we can all bring to the skeptics that are advocating for the status quo.  Do we really need proof of catastrophic impacts before we take action?