It's time for responsibility in the use of science by government and business
Just because something is well organised, it is not necessarily responsible. Take nuclear reprocessing. It is very carefully organised but is still polluting the entire planet with radionucleides that will remain a hazard for millions of years. The events of 1999 when Japan rejected some of the British products of Sellafield (see Nuclear Nightmare) remind us that this international trade, organised by government, still continues.
Simply because something is profitable, it is not necessarily right. Yet this is the working assumption in almost all big decision-making by governments and business. Hence the clashes over 'GMOs' (genetically modified organisms) and trade.
Time to grow up
As the world enters the 21st century, it is time to rid ourselves of these primitive industrial ideas. If we are to implement the measures which could rescue us and our planet from the worsening global environmental crises, we need urgent changes to basic thinking in politics and business.
It is time for governments to grow up about science: to accept that science cannot, in itself, be the arbiter of policy choice and to recognise that its essential role in guiding decisions relating to new technologies is only effectively served when the limits to scientific method and knowledge are explicitly accounted for. Politicians must also accept that we may not need or want some new technologies at all - and that these are society-wide decisions, not ones just for 'scientists' or for shareholders.
That does not mean Greenpeace is against new technologies - our work on renewable energy, engines, paper, cleaning and cooling shows that. Nor is Greenpeace "anti-science"; indeed, we have our own Science Unit and research laboratories (see sound research). But society needs to be able to assess the need for new technologies or, indeed, for the continuation of existing ones.
With too few exceptions, politicians and governments still assume that science is an independent objective process which creates a knowledge of the world more 'valuable' than any other system. They are frightened to intervene. They effectively stand back and watch as knowledge is then converted to technology, and then sold and marketed as products. They still assume that if this creates profit and economic growth it must be a good thing. They may even arrange subsidies if profitability looks doubtful.
Such thinking has brought us a host of disastrous technologies including ones which have drilled a hole in the ozone layer, altered the earth's climate, plundered fisheries and decimated ancient forests. Think of CFCs, PVC, dioxins and globally persistent toxins, not to mention nuclear power. India and parts of Asia are still dumping grounds for some of these technologies (see Bhopal 15 years on).
This is one key reason why the public protested when the World Trade Organisation signaled 'more of the same recipe' but 'with added genetically modified organisms'.
Responsibility and power
With decision-making comes responsibility, but this is a political black hole. Who for example is responsible if in a generation's time a GMO creates an ecological disaster worse than the ozone hole? Who gives the chemical industry the right to impose the risk of releasing HFCs into the atmosphere and worsening climate change? And who is responsible enough to stop that ?
Today many politicians treat entrepreneurs as heroes, and business people seem to expect a free ride when it comes to creating risks. GE crop trials are typically uninsured. A sausage manufacturer whose factory poisons a river may expect a punitive fine but the GE venture capitalist who creates a continent-wide ecological disaster will probably get off free.
There is no reason why new technologies should be effectively free from liability. It was a bad mistake to allow nuclear power and oil industries to create widespread damage without proper liability.
Greenpeace's role is to expose such issues of environmental irresponsibility - and to help citizens and consumers to exert real influence. Politicians must recognise that damage to the environment and human health cannot simply be "discounted" against economic gain. For as long as the "economic argument" remains paramount, truly responsible decision-making will remain out of reach.
The 'precautionary principle' was born from bitter experience with industrial pollution which politicians allowed because they did not understand science. They demanded certainty without realising that science makes its findings more certain by narrowing the field of enquiry. As the results become more precise, they also become less applicable to the problem. Now the Precautionary Principle is under increasing attack from revisionists who want free reign for business to court any risks so long as it turns a profit. Rather than give in to these interests, politicians and governments must invoke the precautionary principle, as part of a wider framework of decision-making aimed at achieving sustainability.
Debate not dogma
We need objective and open political discussions of the role and acceptability of new technologies, without anyone trying to pretend that these are just technical matters that the laboratory and the free market can determine. The principles of eco-system sustainability and the rights of future generations are not negotiable. Moreover, their implementation is not merely a question for experts and certainly cannot be left to business. Indeed, the pursuit of sustainability in all fields of human activity is the most vital task facing all of society in the 21st century.
Thilo Bode, Executive Director,
Greenpeace International
This report and accounts site designed by Milk Design Ltd
Explaining nuclear risks
Greenpeace meets with WTO Director-General Mike Moore
A barrel of oil from the Erika following the spill off the coast of France
Exposing GE maize in Germany