Precautionary Principle and Global Warming - Essay Example

What is taking place, however, is the overabundance of harmful gases which are a byproduct of fossil fuels are causing a latticing effect to take place in the ozone layer. The earth’s ozone layer is necessary in order to filter out the sun’s excessive and destructive ultraviolet rays. As the ozone layer becomes more and more compromised, the areas of the globe governed by cold temperatures (such as the arctic) are literally rising in temperature causing the melting of polar ice caps. As these ice caps melt and merge into the ocean, warm water oceanic areas are being cooled down to unnaturally low temperatures. This results in a drastic rise in natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. On a short-term level, the animals that inhabit the arctic are finding their environment less and less suitable. Fish are dying due to the drastic oceanic temperature changes while animals like penguins and polar bears are finding less and less available fish.

When discussing global warming, the topic of the precautionary principle becomes extremely relevant as well. The precautionary principle is essentially a moral principle with political ramifications, which allows for necessary action in the face of possible danger to public health or the environment even without scientific confirmation or agreed substantiation of the threat from the scientific community. In other words, global warming is certainly a global issue and an obvious threat, regardless of the fact that many with conservative viewpoints argue its validity. Because of this, it is in the world’s best interest to act in a manner that is airing on the side of precaution, in the best interest of pandemic survival. Normal proof policies would indicate that proof rooted in scientific fact is necessary but without exiting the confines of science. The precautionary principle allows for a lack of scientific proof and more of suspicion with some confirmation based on observation or hypotheticals where normal proof policies will require proof prior to allowing for a pro-active approach.

Reasons for using the precautionary principle are obvious and undeniably prudent. We know that a significant amount of quantitative data has indicated a significant shift in global conditions which we would normally expect to remain static. We also know that the last century has ushered in a technological revolution unlike anything remotely comparable in history. This has meant an enormous increase in the use of natural resources, specifically fossil fuels as an energy source. We are currently in the midst of a virtual cold war, which is itself warming along with the earth, with countries that could bring every westernized country to its knees by halting oil exports. Taking the initiative to act upon the current situation, citing it as a very clear and present danger to our survival, would not only be wise but is inexplicably necessary. Taking action, however, is not without consequence. The global economy is an almost direct function of the buying and selling of crude oil. By devising a way to reduce or eliminate the main ingredient to western culture and economic stimulus, the world stands to watch not only the stock market but multiple industries collapse. The view from the right-wing interprets the reality of global warming as a liberal tactic meant to deprive the wealthy of becoming wealthier or to rid the world of the coveted gas-guzzling SUVs. The short-term aftermath of the precautionary principle is at most, a possible plummet in the economy and the possibility of another great depression on a larger scale. The short-term aftermath of not implementing the precautionary principle is just that, a short term without the possibility of ever seeing a long term but in fact a certain end to the earth and to mankind.