In a qualitative sense, it is the so-called "precautionary principle". If we don't know exactly the consequences of our actions, which may be anticipated or even unforeseen, we should err on the side of caution until we have a clearer understanding.
A medical analogy "First do no harm" is a conerstone principle and dates back to the ancient Greeks.
Quantitatively, it is risk management. Also referred to as decisional analysis. In this case, there are essentially 4 possibilities. We either act or we don't act, and, man-made climate change is real or it isn't. If you then consider the result of each of these scenarios you can estimate the costs and risks.
We can determine whether we act or not. We cannot effect the reality of climate change.
If we act and climate change theory is false: we slow economic growth but we end up with a far more efficient energy generation and use and we reduce pollution and waste - not so bad.
So if we don't act and we climate change theory is wrong: we're in luck. Nobody gets hurt, ( well maybe scientists pride, but the relief will easily outweigh that ).
If we act and the scientists are right, we may escape the worst effects of climate change and we will probably defer or slow the rate of change, giving us more time to adapt.
But if the scientists are right and we don't act, we're in trouble....
And here's the trouble
Changes in precipitation, ambient temperature and extremes, freshwater availability and droughts, humidity, severe weather events and sea level rise as a result of climate change do not act in isolation, but rather as co-factors with other environmental stressors, such as loand use change, ocean acidification and pollution.
The combination adversely affects our health directly, but more importantly is degrading our biodiversity and ecosystems, our very life support system:
