Taking long-term climate risks

"I'd rather be safe than sorry!" When difficult decisions about issues that threaten our lives, livelihoods or ways of life confront us, this idea often guides our decision. Codified as the Precautionary Principle, it means in decision-making we should lean toward the choice that will do the least harm. To many of us, cautious conservatism often seems the most reasonable approach.

Those arguing that we cannot afford to address climate change with aggressive policies and programs should reconsider in light of this principle. Risk is a function of the probability of an event and the severity should it occur. If, driven by business as usual, the worst case scenario of climate change occurs, the devastation imposed on our agriculture, forestry and fisheries will likely be catastrophic. It would not be trivial. The cost of reducing carbon emissions pales into insignificance by comparison. Indeed, our way of life is threatened and the tipping point induced by inaction may be near.

We might recall that resistance to fuel efficiency standards cost Detroit its international markets and contributed to corporate downfall. Now, instead of campaigning against energy efficiency, Detroit is touting green credentials as it turns belatedly to small, efficient vehicle production. Additionally, continued emphasis on coal and oil at the expense of renewable energy generation has prevented the United States from assuming leadership in an arena where we should be global leaders.

Not addressing climate change may seem to serve short term profits, but it will not serve humanity or our future.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET, Cape Girardeau