Skip to main content

A perfect parallel: Ashcloud/climate

Isn't it extraordinary that, while the Precautionary Principle was rightly invoked to stop flights for a week because of the ashcloud... apparently it can't be invoked even to reduce flights (for a long long time) to save the atmosphere, the climate?
[I owe this thought to my brilliant student and fellow Green Councillor, Ruth Makoff.]

Comments

-CCCR+ said…
Its not really a perfect parallel. Planes were grounded not due to a precautionary principle but because of various incidents around the world which caused damage to planes. It was simply a strategy to avoid repeating old mistakes and to avoid the risks to people flying.

The risks to the climate are still not comprehensively understood, and the models predicting chaos are fatally flawed. At least Meadows et al had the honesty to say their computer models were not forecasts, presenting possible scenarios at best. A new kind of thought experiment if you will.

I'm happy to correspond and provide research for you to consider.
Rupert said…
It IS a good parallel. The Precuationary Principle was REPEATEDLY invoked in defence of the flight bans; and you write deliberately misleading in talking of 'various incidents around the world which caused damage to planes' - there were virtually none this time, BECAUSE precuationary action was taken.
People like you would have us wait to act on the climate until it is too late. You should be ashamed of yourself, and if you have children I don't know how you can face them.
Anonymous said…
Rupert

that's a ridiculously over the top response to a reasonable post.
-CCCR+ said…
Sorry but you are clearly wrong. The precautionary principle simply says that if we plausibly suspect there might be a bad outcome, the onus of proof should be on disproving this risk rather than proving it.

In the case of aviation, in the 80's there were incidents where aircraft suffered various kinds of damage after encountering volcanic ash including engine failure. Clearly the precautionary principle was not evoked then otherwise these incidents would not have occurred. Any subsequent risks avoided after these events can no longer be PREcautionary.

The current action not to fly is born of historic knowledge of what happens, gained by flying through ash clouds. We know that doing so can damage engines, down planes for months and potentially risk passenger lives. Also the aircraft manufacturers say that their planes should not be flown through volcanic ash. Therefore it is just a good decision based on actual historic proof, not a precautionary principle. There was no doubt flying through volcanic ash poses a threat to aircraft when the decision was made.

So you are wrong about that. I think your reasoning is flawed by jumping from my saying 'our understanding of the climate is still not comprehensively understood' to my being a person 'who would have us wait to act until it is too late'. I'd rather use the resources we have effectively, obviously unlike you. You're the sort of person that would use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or flood a village to put out a bonfire. You think your overreactions are victimless? Think again Mr Moral Highground.

Popular posts from this blog

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...

Stansted: a reflection

The key question, in relation to protsts like that at Stansted last week, is: which side are you on? Are you on the side of big corporations profiteering from completely unsustainable climate-destructive behaviour? Or are you on the side of people with no vested interests just making a non-violent stand, at considerable cost to their own time and money, for the sake of all our futures? It doesn't seem to me a hard judgement to make... Rupert Read Green Party Councillor, Norwich, and Lead Candidate for Eastern Region for the Greens in the 2009 Euro-elections. DID YOU KNOW: A vote of about 10% across Eastern Region on June 4 2009 would be enough to get me elected to the European Parliament... http://rupertsread.blogspot.com