[twoodfin]

Do you think it's at the root of the policy differences? I frequently suspect it's more of a stalking horse for other ideological agendas. How much of a brake did the precautionary principle put on a unified currency, for example?

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?

[cwal37]

I don't think it's at the root, but I do think it's an important factor. I come from the world of environmental science and policy, and it's clearest there. Environmental law in particular, which was one of my favorite subjects in grad school (incidentally, it's really interesting to see how federal environmental protections started in the US then migrated to Europe and became stronger there).

I tried to couch my comment in fairly broad terms (with plenty of caveats) because I know it's not universally applicable. However, I do truly believe that it is an important idea to understand when parsing differences in policy reactions between the USA and Europe. Specific implementations may come down to pre-existing biases, but I think it's still crucial to know what the PP is and how it could be applied in a more black and white situation. To me, it's all about having some knowledge of the frameworks in play in a given situation.