Decision-making Despite Uncertainties

Essentially we have two options: 1) we can wait until sufficient evidence exists and accept the possibility that we may end up acting too late; or 2) we can act now, before conclusive proof is available, and risk either acting unnecessarily or acting in the wrong direction. Before deciding on a course of action, it is important to consider the consequences of being wrong. If we choose the first option and end up acting too late, global systems could experience irreparable damage. Since global systems represent the life support system of our planet, this could have potentially catastrophic effects. Even if definitive proof comes earlier rather than later, it may take many years to come to grips with the causes of global change, during which time global systems will continue to deteriorate. If we choose to act now, and it turns out that we have acted unnecessarily, the consequence could be the unnecessary expenditure of billions of dollars and/or the forgone consumption of energy and natural resources in developed countries.

In responding to this dilemma, the most prudent course is to follow the precautionary principle. If uncertain but potentially serious outcomes can be avoided at a reasonable cost, then they should be avoided. In fact, in many instances, such as energy efficiency, considerable economic benefit can be realized while at the same time improving the environment. As we take actions to move away from these potentially serious outcomes, we should continue research in an attempt to reduce uncertainty. Action to halt the production of ozone depleting substances is a case where this precautionary principle has been applied. CFCs are produced by a limited number of companies world wide, and substitutes were developed quite easily for many of CFC's uses, so the cost of action appeared small in comparison to the potential consequences.

However, in many cases, the cost of action is both immediate and very large, while the potential consequences of inaction are not felt until ten, fifty or one hundred years in the future. Society tends to focus more on the immediate, and leave future problems to future generations. As a result, it will be difficult to convince either the Canadian public or Canadian politicians to choose the second option and act immediately, even if we do agree that the consequences of inaction are potentially catastrophic. Instead, a middle ground can be found by adopting what has been called a no regrets approach to the problem. For this, we select actions that have known environmental or health benefits, in addition to addressing uncertain global change issues. For example, efforts to reduce automobile use will reduce the emission of chemical substances that are known to be harmful to human health. In this case, a reasonably certain, no-regrets justification can be made to support these efforts. In addition, reduced automobile use will decrease the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which, while uncertainties exist, likely contributes to global warming.

If, in our daily lives, we begin to apply the precautionary and no regrets principles to actions that cause global change, we will begin to move toward solutions.