Another Reaction to An Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore raises an important point about the place of science in environmental governance. He reveals that not only has unanimous scientific opinion on global warming been sidelined but that government-commissioned scientific reports have been doctored by inexpert political appointees.
Aside from the political fallout, the major legal issue here is the extent to which science should be taken into account to rectify environmental harms perpetrated in the past. There is no doubt that science has some role to play in development planning and environmental impact assessments. However, these legal frameworks do nothing to change the status quo. They are designed to prevent future harm. In the absence of legislative frameworks to rectify the status quo, administrative organs are powerless. In the absence of a public political outcry there is nothing that will bind legislators to heed to scientific fact and subsequently to empower administrators.
Gore admits to having lost some faith in political processes that he thought would eventually come round to the view that has been patent to him for years. He inadvertently reveals that global warming is an issue that should shake the constitutional foundations of many States. Legislative action should measure up to a constitutional yardstick that places science at the centre of decisions that impact the human habitat. I have no doubt that this will be viewed as a radical approach. It is also one that would encounter difficulties if ever it were adopted because natural science can only be one of several considerations. However, shouldn't the habitat that we depend on be a matter of constitutional importance in much the same way that the dignity of each individual is? Should the legislature not be prevented from adopting measures (or refusing to adopt measures) on the basis of considerations that fly in the face of scientific fact?
Aside from the political fallout, the major legal issue here is the extent to which science should be taken into account to rectify environmental harms perpetrated in the past. There is no doubt that science has some role to play in development planning and environmental impact assessments. However, these legal frameworks do nothing to change the status quo. They are designed to prevent future harm. In the absence of legislative frameworks to rectify the status quo, administrative organs are powerless. In the absence of a public political outcry there is nothing that will bind legislators to heed to scientific fact and subsequently to empower administrators.
Gore admits to having lost some faith in political processes that he thought would eventually come round to the view that has been patent to him for years. He inadvertently reveals that global warming is an issue that should shake the constitutional foundations of many States. Legislative action should measure up to a constitutional yardstick that places science at the centre of decisions that impact the human habitat. I have no doubt that this will be viewed as a radical approach. It is also one that would encounter difficulties if ever it were adopted because natural science can only be one of several considerations. However, shouldn't the habitat that we depend on be a matter of constitutional importance in much the same way that the dignity of each individual is? Should the legislature not be prevented from adopting measures (or refusing to adopt measures) on the basis of considerations that fly in the face of scientific fact?
Comments
Are you proposing a benevolent green monarch?
When you talk about shaking constitutional foundations, I'd be really sure you know the nature of the constitutional framework you're proposing we should dismantle. Just because you disagree with the policy choices of a government does not justify throwing out the whole system. To my ear, the UK/European approach seems far more cavalier about constitutions, perhaps because you like to pick new ones so often.
When you propose this kind of radical change, which is conveniently vague, I think you just end up alienating the people you need to convince. The only way you will convince most people is to show them practical solutions, and show how more money can be made being environmentally responsible.
In the US, I'm not sure how replacing a representative democracy and a system of checks and balances to incorporate an environmental mandate is wise or even feasible. Should we have a new "science" branch of government? Gore is working within the bounds of the constitution. He says himself he wants to convince one person at a time. He's not using outlandish rhetoric, he's convincing others with the strength of his arguments.
Let's test your idea in another context. Take smoking. If it could be scientifically proven that smoking is just as harmful to individuals as carbon emissions are to the environment, shouldn't your constitutional science mandate dictate we outlaw smoking? Wouldn't your approach lead us to forbid smoking, or even drinking? Science is one important aspect to be sure, but the scientific method is not the sole foundation for governing.
I said verbatim that 'Legislative action should measure up to a constitutional yardstick that places science at the centre of decisions that impact the human habitat'. What I mean is that environmental law should be elevated to the status of constitutional law in a similar way as fundamental rights are. I admit that I do not know what the precise details would be but I do think that it is worth discussing. I also said that the nitty gritty would be problematic because science cannot be the only consideration. Yet I will reiterate the point that we need to reconsider the place of science in governance of our habitat and that our habitat must be a mater of constitutional value.
As for smoking, I think that simply trivialises the argument. The harmful effects of smoking and passive smoking are known and action to ban smoking in public has been taken in many countries, all of which I agree with 100%.