Are we witnessing the beginning of a real-life satire, at once amusing and terrifying? Its theme is the smothering of the nuclear power risk by catastrophic climate change and the oil crisis.
At the G8 meeting in Hokkaido last week US President George W. Bush reiterated his plea for the construction of new nuclear energy plants. At the start of this week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the fast-tracking of eight new reactors and called for “a renaissance of nuclear power” in a “post-oil economy.”
It is as if a world that wishes to save the climate must learn to appreciate the beauty of nuclear energy — or “green energy” — as Germany’s Christian Democratic Union General Secretary Ronald Pofalla has rechristened it. Given this new turn in the politics of language, we should remind ourselves of the following.
A couple of years ago the US Congress established an expert commission to develop a language or symbolism capable of warning against the threats posed by US nuclear waste dumps 10,000 years from now. The problem to be solved was — how must concepts and symbols be designed in order to convey a message to future generations, millennia from now? The commission included physicists, anthropologists, linguists, neuroscientists, psychologists, molecular biologists, classical academics and artists.
The experts looked for models among the oldest symbols of humanity. They studied the construction of Stonehenge and the pyramids and examined the historical reception of Homer and the Bible. But these reached back at most a couple of thousand years, not 10,000. The anthropologists recommended the symbol of the skull and crossbones. However, a historian reminded the commission that the skull and crossbones symbolized resurrection for the alchemists, and a psychologist conducted an experiment with three-year-olds: If the symbol was affixed to a bottle they anxiously shouted “poison!” but if it was placed on a wall they enthusiastically yelled “pirates!”
Even our language fails when faced with the challenge of alerting future generations to the dangers we have introduced into the world through the use of nuclear power. Seen in this light, the actors who are supposed to be the guarantors of security and rationality — the state, science and industry — are engaged in a highly ambivalent game. They are no longer trustees but suspects, no longer managers of risks but also sources of risks. For they are urging the population to climb into an aircraft for which a landing strip has not yet been built.
The “existential concern” being awakened across the world by global risks has led to a contest to suppress large-scale risks in political discussion. The incalculable dangers to which climate change is giving rise are supposed to be “combated” with the incalculable dangers associated with nuclear power plants.
Many decisions over large-scale risks are not a matter of choosing between safe and risky alternatives, but between different risky alternatives, and often between alternatives whose risks are too qualitatively different to easily compare. Existing forms of scientific and public discourse are no match for such considerations. Here governments adopt the strategy of deliberate simplification. They present each specific decision as one between safe and risky alternatives, while playing down the uncertainties of nuclear energy and focusing attention on the oil crisis and climate change.
The striking fact is that the lines of conflict within world-risk society are cultural ones. The more global risks escape the usual methods of scientific calculation and turn out to be a domain of relative non-knowledge, the more important becomes the cultural perception of specific global risks — that is, the belief in their reality or unreality.
In the case of nuclear power, we are witnessing a clash of risk cultures. Thus the Chernobyl experience is perceived differently in Germany and France, Britain, Spain or Ukraine and Russia. For many Europeans the threats posed by climate change now loom much more largely than nuclear power or terrorism.
Now that climate change is regarded as manmade and its catastrophic impacts viewed as inevitable, the cards are being reshuffled in society and politics. But it is completely mistaken to represent climate change as an unavoidable path to human destruction. For climate change opens up unexpected opportunities to rewrite the priorities and rules of politics.
Although the rise in the price of oil benefits the climate, it comes with the threat of mass decline. The explosion in energy costs is gnawing away at the standard of living and is giving rise to a risk of poverty at the heart of society. As a consequence, the priority which was still accorded energy security 20 years after Chernobyl is being undermined by the question of how long consumers can maintain their standards of living in the face of the steady increase in energy prices.
Yet to disregard the “vestigial risk” of nuclear energy is to misunderstand the cultural and political dynamic of the “residual-risk-society.” The most tenacious, convincing and effective critics of nuclear energy are not the greens — the most influential opponent of the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry itself.
Even if politicians were successful in the semantic reinvention of nuclear power as green electricity and even if the opposing social movements were to dissipate their energy through fragmentation, this is all nullified by the real opposing force of the threat. It is constant, permanent and remains present even when exhausted demonstrators have long since given up. The probability of improbable accidents increases with the number of “green” nuclear plants; each “occurrence” awakens memories of all the others, across the world.
For risk is not synonymous with catastrophe. Risk means the anticipation of catastrophe, not just in a specific place but everywhere. It doesn’t even have to come to a mini-Chernobyl in Europe. The global public needs only to get wind of negligence and “human error” somewhere in the world and suddenly the governments advocating “green” nuclear energy will find themselves accused of gambling recklessly and against their better judgment with the security interests of the population.
What will become of “responsible citizens” who cannot sense these threats produced by civilization, and hence are robbed of their sovereign judgment? Consider the following thought experiment.
What would happen if radioactivity caused itchiness? Realists, also known as cynics, will answer: People would invent something, for example an ointment, to “suppress” the itching. A profitable business with a good future.
Of course, persuasive explanations would immediately be offered explaining that the itching was unimportant, that it could be traced back to other factors. Presumably such attempts to explain things away would have a poor chance of survival if everyone ran around with skin rashes scratching themselves and fashion shoots and business meetings were accompanied by incessant scratching. Then the social and political ways of dealing with modern large-scale hazards would face a completely different situation because the issue under dispute and negotiation would be culturally visible.
Ulrich Beck is a professor of sociology at Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilians University and the London School of Economics.
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
RSS