This sounds vaguely like the "Precautionary Principle", but that can be used both ways here. If the situation is that continued action is bad in a certain manner and while we know that cessation is good in a certain manner, then cessation would be precautionary and the detriments of the specified manner would be avoided. However, if the proposal is a counter-plan that is not based on the status quo or previous equilibrium point, then the precautionary principle might argue against instituting the counter-plan.
Originally Posted by tdvance
Cessation of activities that release global warming gasses is probably not controversial or problematic from an environmental point of view, after all, we might discover that it's not anthropogenic, thus the burden of proof need not be high. However acting in ways to reverse the trend covers up the effects of one action with another, which could be controversial from an environmental point of view, and would require a higher burden of proof.
Of course, this ignores all the social, political, and economic issues with either action because it's irrelevant to a determination of the veracity of either claim. Moreover, the claims of social, political and economic burden are often contradictory, after all, increasing efficiency is often its own reward.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.