There is an international law called a “precautionary principle”, which states that it is better to be overly cautious than to create a potential risk to the environment.
Now this law can be used in many instances where the environment is concerned. If research shows a potential risk to the environment, then this “principle” can be applied and a law can be implemented to support the caution that research suggests.
What is also in place in our current system is a “preemptive strike”. This is when another “law” is created that blocks a force lower down on the chain of command from being able to create a law.
This scenario is played out in the story of lawn pesticide use and explained in the movie ” A Chemical Reaction” and some blogs that I will list below.
Basically, a small town in Canada realized that the environment of the town ( meaning the people and the animals etc.) was potentially being adversely affected by lawn pesticides and decided to ban the use of them in the town. As the fight to stop the use of these pesticides moved through the system and eventually won, a lawyer from the states ( who payed his salary?) took an interest and when he realized that a law banning pesticide use was the winner, went back to the states and lobbied for a “pre emptive strike” against the individual states from a federal level. Meaning, a law was created that rendered local towns powerless to prohibit homeowners from using lawn chemicals on their own properties.
And, yes, the chemical industry has been successful in lobbying for this pre emptive strike.
So, a pre emptive strike is when one level of government overrides laws of a lower level of government. Here, the chemical industry lobbied states to pass legislation prohibiting towns from passing local ordinances that are stricter than state laws. State laws protecting pesticide use.
An argument used to support this pre emptive strike is that local governments cannot make decisions about something as complex as lawn pesticides.
Are we “looping” yet?
It makes me feel “loopy”. Of course common sense is not here, nor is it meant to be allowed to exist in all this, this circumnavigation of what is actually happening with the physical world, through laws, is enough to make anyone throw up their hands and give up.
But the simplicity of the practical is here.
This story of how industry supports itself without any consideration for the environment should be enough to wake the world up to how the system functions and has no consideration for life.
Our present system has laws in place to allow the benefit of the doubt but then steps in to block that questioning, and even suggests that the questioning cannot be done through common sense but must be done by authority, by supposed authority.
To pick one’s way through this ‘loopy” mess, that which supports this kind of blocking of implementing awareness of the harm humans are doing to themselves and this world, can be solved. But everyone has to stand up and say enough! The means to stop this would be to realize our equality, to realize that some lawyer working for a chemical company is not going to have an interest beyond what they serve. Service to a system, to a place in a hierarchy does not serve the interest of all as one as equal, does not serve the interest of WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL! Allowing a pre emptive strike to decide that common sense does not exist is the material of confrontation. Common sense is what is actually happening with the physical, and words of suggestion on a page often do not reflect that which is the physical.
Words are a reflection of the mind, and not what is actually, physically here. The laws the systems have placed before us are not concerned with what is actually here.