|
|
|
|
|
by cwal37
4289 days ago
|
|
One thing that I think people are unaware of with respect to America vs. Europe is the implementation of the precautionary principle[1]. While it is discussed most often in environmental circles (probably one of the key differentiators in international environmental policy/law), it really has become a pervasive cultural difference in governing perspectives. While it is not officially ingrained in all aspects of EU law, it is certainly present in quite a few decisions. Personally, I think there needs to be a balance, and you can find examples on both sides of its implementation being heavy-handed (GMOs in Europe), or its absence devastating (some Superfund sites or adverse long-term health impacts in the USA). Of course, I'm speaking in general terms here, as you can find counterexamples in both cultural spheres, but that general policy distinction does exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle |
|
And it's hard to see on which side the PP comes down for many issues: Should we institute a carbon tax because we should show precaution at the effects of a continuing accumulation of greenhouse gasses? Or should we avoid it because we can't properly gauge its long term cost/benefit ratio?