首页> 外文期刊>Science and Public Policy >The regulation of risk: the case of fracking in the UK and the Netherlands
【24h】

The regulation of risk: the case of fracking in the UK and the Netherlands

机译:风险监管:英国和荷兰的水力压裂案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The precautionary principle was developed in environmental politics as a guiding mechanism for governments where new technologies, products, and processes produced potential health or environmental problems but where scientific evidence could not explain why. Anecdotal evidence of fracking suggests that it might cause water pollution or subsidence, but the scientific evidence to support this proposition is not yet in place. This paper examines the actions of the UK and Dutch governments toward fracking. Although both governments have adopted the precautionary principle into national law, neither has directly invoked it in the field of fracking, relying instead on more conventional scientific understandings of risk. In line with other papers in Science and Public Policy, this article provides a comparative analytical analysis of scientific policy regulation. It does so by arguing that while notionally subscribed to the precautionary principle, the UK and Dutch authorities have been reluctant to use it.
机译:预防原则是在环境政治中发展起来的,是政府的一种指导机制,在该政府中,新技术,新产品和新工艺会产生潜在的健康或环境问题,但在科学证据无法解释原因的地方。压裂的轶事证据表明,它可能导致水污染或沉陷,但尚无科学证据支持这一主张。本文研究了英国和荷兰政府针对水力压裂的行动。尽管两国政府均已将预防原则纳入国家法律,但两国均未在水力压裂领域直接援引该原则,而是依靠对风险的更常规的科学理解。与《科学与公共政策》的其他论文相一致,本文提供了对科学政策法规的比较分析。这样做的理由是,尽管英国在理论上赞同预防原则,但英国和荷兰当局一直不愿使用该原则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号