ブックタイトルRILAS 早稲田大学総合人文科学研究センター研究誌

概要

RILAS 早稲田大学総合人文科学研究センター研究誌

WASEDA RILAS JOURNALtasks, but it is not clear whether the problems relatingto nuclear energy production are any less daunting. Ifwe recall just the astronomical costs to just keep safethe nuclear waste for millions years and the technicaldifficulties involving such task, we can realize thenuclear energy production is full of unsavory surprise.Finally, we have to realize that nuclear energyproduction tends to foster an authoritarian governancestructure. This is because the very existence of nuclearpower plants poses a number of high-risk securityissues. There is the genuine possibility of nuclear terrorismand other misuse of radioactive materials. Thatis why all the nuclear power plants in the world areunder constant surveillance. To maintain this highlevel surveillance for many, many years is a truly unattainablegoal, especially since it has to be done nomatter what political turmoil and economic crisesmight occur in the region. Considering all this, nuclearenergy does not look so clean or green anymore.I do not appeal to environmentalism or any otherpotentially controversial claims about how to organizeour lives and society. I want to highlight the fact that,without any help from any ideal-sounding claims, wecan rationally judge that nuclear power plants mustdisappear as soon as possible. Even the very narroweconomic consideration, with proper cost-benefit analysis,supports this view.While the need to abolish nuclear energy isstrong, that does not mean that nuclear power plantscan simply be abolished now and forever. There has tobe a rather long (hopefully, not too long) transitionperiod, bridging our current mode of energy productionto a better, more sustainable energy productionsystem. During the transition period, we need an intelligentrisk-governance reinforced by transparent riskcommunication.We should never try to mislead thepublic, indicating that they can remain in this unsustainableway of energy production and consumption.We should start building institutions that will allow usto get through the transition as smoothly as possible.Simultaneously, we must control the intrinsic riskassociated with nuclear power plants with a more openattitude, meaning willing to take a more‘inclusive’protocols in relevant decision-making. Complex systemslike nuclear power plants are not likely to beimmune from accidents. Better communication withresidents around plant sites, coupled with a publicguarantee to access maintenance information, willhelp build the trust among people that is crucial tosupport the temporary and safe working of the plants.4. Concluding Remarks:Cost-Benefit Analysis andthe Precautionary PrincipleThe two failed cases of risk management discussedin this paper illustrate the need for an extendedconcept of risk-governance; that is, a more participatory,transparent structure of risk management thatgets interest groups involved and reflects citizens’opinions on governing the intrinsic risks associatedwith complex technological systems such as internationalepidemic control or nuclear power production. ?Still, there is another deeper aspect of these twofailures. They show the conceptual limitation of costbenefitanalysis itself, and the need for properlyunderstanding the precautionary principle. Cost-benefitanalysis is strongly favored by government officialsbecause of its intuitive justifiability. If we have apotential risk to deal with, let us calculate its expectedcost and benefit, and compare them to arrive at anobjective decision. That sounds nice and clear, but theappearance of straightforward calculation actuallyhides a certain ethical and institutional assumption.For instance, the usual cost-benefit calculation,applied to our efforts to slow down global warming,gives us a negative answer, mainly because withoutsuitable institutions such as a universal carbon tax, thebenefit private industry can get from our actions is notthat great and the cost appears larger. Costs and benefitscan be calculated only in a given institutionalsetting, and if we decide to change the setting forpolitical or moral reasons, the results of an objectivecost-benefit analysis vary accordingly. In this sense,the apparently value-free calculations involved in thestandard economic calculation actually rest on hugeassumptions about what constitutes an ethical way toorganize our society and individual lives. If we collectivelydeliberate, applying all relevant information,and come up with a reasonable plan to change our wayof governing the intrinsic risks of complex technologicalsystems, the economic conclusions may beappropriately streamlined to suit our vision. Economicrationality is important in our everyday risk management,but we have to decide how to set up a riskgovernancestructure before starting the routine workof managing risks. And that is the legitimate way of114