d. Agency factors such as
"the US government is better than the one in
Japan" or "the local fire chief is my
brother-in-law" could play a part in the
decision-making process.
With all these
biases intact, there is hardly any surprise that
unless a full-scale evacuation is actually called
for, there will be very few voluntary moves out of
California.
Example 2: Building or
renewing a nuclear power plant
Everything I relayed about earthquakes
and the policy and personal dilemmas they pose can
be replicated in the case of building and
operating nuclear power plants. Wikipedia entry for
nuclear accidents notes the
following:
Globally, there have been at least
99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear
reactor accidents from 1952 to 2009 (defined as
incidents that either resulted in the loss of
human life or more than US$50,000 of property
damage, the amount the US federal government
uses to define major energy accidents that must
be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in
property damages. Property damage costs include
destruction of property, emergency response,
environmental remediation, evacuation, lost
product, fines, and court claims. Because
nuclear reactors are large and complex accidents
onsite tend to be relatively expensive.
At least 56 nuclear reactor accidents
have occurred in the USA. Relatively few
accidents have involved fatalities. The most
serious of these US accidents was the Three Mile
Island accident in 1979. According to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse has
been the source of two of the top five most
dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States
since 1979.
This doesn't appear to be
a big deal when measured for example, in the
context of other natural disasters such as
hurricanes or even the number of offshore rig (oil
rigs) accidents. Wikipedia notes the following on
the risks of offshore platforms:
The nature of their [offshore
platforms] operation - extraction of volatile
substances sometimes under extreme pressure in a
hostile environment - means risk; accidents and
tragedies occur regularly. The US Minerals
Management Service reported 69 offshore deaths,
1,349 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions on
offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from 2001 to
2010. In July 1988, 167 people died when
Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha offshore
production platform, on the Piper field in the
UK sector of the North Sea, exploded after a gas
leak. The resulting investigation conducted by
Lord Cullen and publicized in the first Cullen
Report was highly critical of a number of areas,
including, but not limited to, management within
the company, the design of the structure, and
the Permit to Work System. The report was
commissioned in 1988, and was delivered November
1990. The accident greatly accelerated the
practice of providing living accommodations on
separate platforms, away from those used for
extraction.
However, this was in itself
a hazardous environment. In March 1980, the
'flotel' (floating hotel) platform Alexander L
Kielland capsized in a storm in the North Sea
with the loss of 123 lives. In 2001, Petrobras
36 in Brazil exploded and sank five days later,
killing 11 people.
Given the number of
grievances and conspiracy theories that involve
the oil business, and the importance of gas/oil
platforms to the economy, platforms in the
United States are believed to be potential
terrorist targets. Agencies and military units
responsible for maritime counterterrorism in the
US (Coast Guard, Navy SEALs, Marine Recon) often
train for platform raids.
On April 21,
2010, the Deepwater Horizon platform, 52 miles
off-shore of Venice, Louisiana, (property of
Transocean and leased to BP) exploded, killing
11 people, and sank two days later. The
resulting undersea gusher, conservatively
estimated to exceed 20 million gallons as of
early June, 2010, became the worst oil spill in
US history, eclipsing the Exxon Valdez oil
spill.
Even onshore oil isn't without
risks of course, as the latest events in Bahrain,
Libya and other countries highlight wherein well
over 2,000 lives have been lost due to the pursuit
of "black gold".
Yet, close on the heels
of the Japanese situation, we have seen major
governments around the world take preventive
action against nuclear power plants. As the
newspaper USA Today reported on March 17, 2011:
Japan's nuclear crisis is causing an
increasing number of other countries, including
China, France and Germany, to reconsider their
use of nuclear power. German Chancellor Angela
Merkel called Thursday for a "measured exit"
from nuclear power and an expedited transition
to renewable energy.
"When the
apparently impossible happens in such a highly
developed country as Japan ... then the whole
situation changes," Merkel, a former environment
minister, told parliament, according to Agence
France-Presse. She ordered a temporary shutdown
Tuesday of the seven oldest of Germany's 15
nuclear reactors while authorities conduct
safety probes. At least one has been permanently
shuttered.
China's State Council said
Wednesday that the government will suspend
approvals for nuclear power plants so it can
conduct safety checks at existing plants and
those under construction, reports the Associated
Press. China has 13 nuclear power plants in use
but plans to add many more as it seeks to reduce
its reliance on coal-fired plants, which emit
greenhouse gases. It's also developing solar,
wind and hydropower.
That kind of
action, which is being billed as an overreaction
by some readers, stands in sharp contrast to the
points that were discussed about earthquakes.
Granted that while one is a natural event and the
other is man made, even so the relative
probabilities are comparable.
Politicians
are merely reacting to the fears of the public, in
which case, it may be appropriate why the very
factors that prevent people from leaving
California despite the known risks of an
earthquake have instead caused (very similar)
people to shy away from the lower probability
risks associated with living next to or supporting
the building of nuclear power plants.
Objectively, it is difficult to argue that
the risks associated with nuclear power plants are
even comparable to those associated with natural
events such as earthquakes. Yet, the actions of
both governments and people (individually)
highlight the fallacies associated with analyses
based on the cool estimation of probabilities. In
particular, the behavioral notion of Keynesian
beauty contests plays a large part in our daily
lives:
Keynes described the action of
rational agents in a market using an analogy
based on a fictional newspaper contest, in which
entrants are asked to choose a set of six faces
from photographs of women that are the "most
beautiful". Those who picked the most popular
face are then eligible for a prize.
A
naive strategy would be to choose the six faces
that, in the opinion of the entrant, are the
most beautiful. A more sophisticated contest
entrant, wishing to maximize the chances of
winning a prize, would think about what the
majority perception of beauty is, and then make
a selection based on some inference from their
knowledge of public perceptions. This can be
carried one step further to take into account
the fact that other entrants would each have
their own opinion of what public perceptions
are. Thus the strategy can be extended to the
next order, and the next, and so on, at each
level attempting to predict the eventual outcome
of the process based on the reasoning of other
rational agents.
"It is not a case of
choosing those [faces] that, to the best of
one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor
even those that average opinion genuinely thinks
the prettiest. We have reached the third degree
where we devote our intelligences to
anticipating what average opinion expects the
average opinion to be. And there are some, I
believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and
higher degrees." (Keynes, General Theory of
Employment Interest and Money, 1936).
Keynes believed that similar behavior
was at work within the stock market. This would
have people pricing shares not based on what
they think their fundamental value is, but
rather on what they think everyone else thinks
their value is, or what everybody else would
predict the average assessment of value
is.
This is the reason why in an
earthquake-prone area, government officials and
people tend to act in a fashion that suggest an
underestimation of risks; while with respect to
nuclear power plants they behave in a fashion that
suggests an overestimation of risks. The fault is
not with them; rather it lies in what they think
the rest of us expect from them.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online
(Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110