More on Nuclear Energy & the Japanese Disaster

This post by anthropologist Hugh Gusterson, brought to my attention by Farnum Street, expresses my concerns about nuclear energy. I don't think that we, as a society, really grasp the risks that we run, as this author suggests. We still have a very flawed financial system, and we don't know how to deal with nuclear disasters because we can't predict them very well. On the other hand, nuclear energy is very tempting because it comes as a low carbon price.

Let me hearken back to an earlier post & exchange with follow blogger Frank Robinson. Mr. Robinson gave a very succinct account of the liability issues associated with nuclear energy, including an acknowledgment of the possible application of the principles of strict liability to the nuclear industry. I disagree with him in that I believe that the nuclear energy industry should be subject to strict liability, while he does not. However, I believe that all of this begs a much greater issue: whether born by the public or a private company, can we afford, or are willing willing to afford, the losses that we risk. Let me provide a historic example. Fire, the Promethean gift, has burned down many, many great cities: Chicago, San Francisco, Tokyo, London, to name just a few that pop to mind. These societies bore these losses and recovered. We now have control of fires, at least in our cities, such that we don't think that huge swaths of cities will fall in a fire. But what if we suffered a nuclear accident, if, for instance, Fukushima went even further out of control? What level of destruction--although it may prove silent and virtually invisible--are we willing to suffer? If the potential loss is too great for any one company or insurance scheme, should we as a society allow this risk? I'm not sure where we draw the line, but I don't know if these questions are being asked widely enough. That's one reason I enjoyed the cited post.
Thoughts?

Energy & Frankenstein

This is a very brief but thoughtful essay on the perils of our energy regime. Last summer we had the Gulf oil spill and now we have the Japanese nuclear disaster. Are we digging our selves a hole that we can't dig out of, or at least that will trap us--in terms of health and wealth--for decades? The Frankenstein myth should still hold some resonance for us. Again, I have to point to Thomas Homer-Dixon and his The Ingenuity Gap as a prophet about these issues. Of course, let me be clear: I'm not a Luddite. I really, really enjoy my electronics. Life would be much poorer with electricity. However, we'd better think of some very good answers to our energy future or we're in for more and more problems.

On the other hand, Frank Robinson at the Rational Optimist points out that nothing is risk free, that we've not had very many deaths from nuclear power, and that we need nuclear power if we're going to reduce carbon emissions. All very valid points. Here's the question that is not answered: can the nuclear industry operate under tort standards of conduct? Should nuclear power adhere to strict liability standards (I say "yes", and I think that may be the current law). If the industry can't live with that standard; if they can't provide that degree of protection; if that can't pay the level of damages that they might cause, then should we use this source of energy? How much in damages might we be talking about? I don't know, but how much did BP pay for its Gulf clean-up? Tough issues.

The Genie: Capitalism & Human Values by Frank S. Robinson

Fellow blogger Frank Robinson has posted a link to a spirited and well-argued defense of capitalism that he published (link above). Robinson makes what I consider a Churchillian argument. As Churchill is reported to have said about democracy--"it's the worst form of government, except when compared to all of the others"--so Robinson seems to be arguing for capitalism. (Side note: I prefer the term "market economy" to "capitalism" because of the strong emotional valance "capitalism" holds in some quarters, left and right, but this is a small quibble.) Robinson readily admits the shortcomings of capitalism, but it has brought us untold wealth. It has not brought us heaven on earth, but we should not expect it to do so. By the way, neither has any other form of economy, socialism, mercantilism, or the agricultural society that dominated humankind up until about 225 years ago. Compare yourself the the most powerful and wealthiest persons in history and it's likely that you enjoy a higher standard of life than any such person. A Vanderbilt, a Rothschild (19th century version), not to mention a Napoleon, any king, a caesar: all pale compared to the standard of life and wealth that the average American enjoys today, albeit without all of the social prestige. Do you want social prestige or a medical system that can treat you and a car or jet to travel rather than a horse and buggy?

So is there anything to further to ponder? The genie of capitalism, or more broadly the fruits of capitalism, economic growth, has given us a whole new way of life, full of opportunities and brave new worlds. But can we control this genie? Having unleashed the genie of unprecedented economic growth in the last 225 years or so, can we continue to live with it? As Ian Morris discusses in The Why the West Rules, we can imagine at least two very different scenarios of the future that might play out: one "nightfall" and the other, "the singularity". Which scenario will likely play out? Or will we continue to muddle through? I question whether we can continue to dump growing amounts of carbon into our atmosphere with impunity. I'd begun to think that nuclear energy might be an answer, but now the catastrophe in Japan demonstrates how the best laid plans can not anticipate all of the threats. (Fire, by the way, posed similar threats and wrecked havoc on earlier civilizations on a huge scale, but not on a scale for area and duration that compares to nuclear catastrophes.) As I'm of an age to recall Three Mile Island (not really so bad), Chernobyl (really bad), and "The China Syndrome" (scary and kind of relevant to what's happening here), I can't rest easy with this situation.

Considering the perspectives of Thomas Homer-Dixon, I wonder if we've developed an ingenuity gap that we may not prove able to bridge, or that our energy needs, the lifeblood of any human group, have grown too large and chaotic to manage and continue. During the the first 40 or so years of my life, I feared the genie of atomic weaponry, which seems to be back in the bottle, but really it's only resting in silos--we hope. Can we control the fruits of modernity and capitalism, such as atomic energy? The problem stems from the fact that we as a species haven't changed all that much since leaving the savannas of Africa about 100,000 years ago. We still have most of the same instincts and biases, the same perspectives and limitations. We've come a long way, but have we come far enough?

Can we continue to grow in knowledge and power? Can we continue to grow something that we call "the economy"? I hope so, but we should be considering how we can tame this genie lest it get the better of us.

David Brooks on Egypt & the Quest for Dignity

I owe this one to Frank Robinson's excellent post on Egypt @ his blog The Rational Optimist. Robinson incorporates insights from Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (a great source for understanding the Hegelian tradition, Plato, and Nietzsche and which I think has been unfairly maligned), as well as from Brooks. In any event, Robinson and Brooks have reasonable hopes for the Egyptian movement. Societies can improve, and while backsliding does occur, we have reason for hope. I hope that they're both right.