We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"The precautionary principle is the idea that when there is the chance of negative consequences from a new technology that the burden of proof lies with the inventors/implementers of the technology to prove that there are absolutely no negative consequences of implementing said technology."
Interesting concept, but to me the real issue is not the burden of proof that falls upon the innovators; it's the burden of acceptance that falls upon the users. For example, imagine that an inventor created a window fan that was a vortex air separator. The fan blades threw cool air into the house, and warm air out of the house; no compressor needed. This would reduce people's electric bill by about 50%. Both in the summer and the winter.
But the lower electric bill would mean fewer jobs for the power company employees. So they would get laid-off. Is it the responsibility of the consumer to make sure that the electric company provides jobs? I would say "No." Those unemployed workers would simply have to find something else to do.
I use this as an example because the government is promising to create millions of "green" jobs. But those jobs are fake. When you pile millions of fake jobs on top of each other, the only possible result is disaster.