Global Warming, Terrorism, and Risk Tolerance
Crooked Timber says that the global warming debate is over. Is it? What do I look like, the Shell Answer Man? (Actually, the Shell Answer Man would probably assess the situation rather differently than I might...) All I do on this one is wait around for the experts to output an answer. But according to CT, that answer has been outputted.
Anyway, long ago somebody posted a comment here noting how bizzarre it is that the Administration is frantically risk-averse with regard to terrorism but almost entirely unphased by the threat of global warming (which, as said comment-poster noted, would make an atom bomb going off in Manhattan look "like a pin-prick.").
So why the double-standard? The answers that come readily to mind are pretty depressing.
But here's something weird, and I wonder whether this figures in in any way: ever notice that when there's an explosion or some other disaster many folks seem to, first, worry that it was terrorism and then, later, breathe a sigh of relief when it turns out not to be? I mean, if a chemical plant explodes and ten people are killed, then, well, ten people are killed. Whether it's terrorism or an accident seems more or less irrelevant, doesn't it? Yet I get the feeling that if it turns out to be terrorism people will transition from quiet concern to running around and screaming, and transition with fair rapidity. So what gives?
I have a feeling that I'm thinking about this wrong/missing something obvious here, but can't quite figure out what it is.
Crooked Timber says that the global warming debate is over. Is it? What do I look like, the Shell Answer Man? (Actually, the Shell Answer Man would probably assess the situation rather differently than I might...) All I do on this one is wait around for the experts to output an answer. But according to CT, that answer has been outputted.
Anyway, long ago somebody posted a comment here noting how bizzarre it is that the Administration is frantically risk-averse with regard to terrorism but almost entirely unphased by the threat of global warming (which, as said comment-poster noted, would make an atom bomb going off in Manhattan look "like a pin-prick.").
So why the double-standard? The answers that come readily to mind are pretty depressing.
But here's something weird, and I wonder whether this figures in in any way: ever notice that when there's an explosion or some other disaster many folks seem to, first, worry that it was terrorism and then, later, breathe a sigh of relief when it turns out not to be? I mean, if a chemical plant explodes and ten people are killed, then, well, ten people are killed. Whether it's terrorism or an accident seems more or less irrelevant, doesn't it? Yet I get the feeling that if it turns out to be terrorism people will transition from quiet concern to running around and screaming, and transition with fair rapidity. So what gives?
I have a feeling that I'm thinking about this wrong/missing something obvious here, but can't quite figure out what it is.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:11 AM
6 Comments:
Maybe you're just not cynical enough: terrorism sells newspapers and gets people to watch the tube.
It should be nowhere near the top concern of your average US dweller, but take a look ant any recent opinion po -- OH MY GOD THERE'S ONE BEHIND YOU NOW ... sorry, false alarm, lower the alert level to "plaid".
It's "hip," it's the piece of paper at the top of the inbox, whatever.
That said, I would take it as pretty significant if, a power plant were to be the target of an actual terrorist attack in the US. The WTC and Pentagon were largely symbolic targets, and the USS Cole was a military target. Terrorists have never gone after the infrastructure that undergirds daily life in the US, (ok: Timothy McVeigh, but his target was chosen on symbolic grounds too). So if a power plant were to be bombed, that would be something new.
There's been a fair amount of psychological reasearch on this sort of thing. (I wish I had the references, but this *is* a blog post response...) For whatever reason, human beings fear a given level of risk a great deal more if the risk is perceived springing from others actually wishing to do harm to them. So, people will happily move a place with much higher risks of death by traffic than a smaller one of being shot by a mugger. Weirdly, given the above, people empathize more with victims of situations that are accidental than intentional. We'll dig into our pockets much more quickly when people are made homeless by a tsumami than when they are driven from their homes by some ethnic-cleansing militia, even when the level of need, remoteness, and risk to the aid giver are the same. The psychs from what I have seen like to appeal to some kind of evolutionary explanation for this kind of thing. Whatever the explanation, this kind of behaviour does seem to be closely bound to the way people assess risk.
On the good side, this kind of explanation for our thinking on risk is a lot less cynical that the sort of think you usually see, i.e.: We live in a "culture of fear", designed by the media (or their masters) to (take your pick) stimulate consumption of security providers' products, distract us from dangers the elite doesn't want us to think about, or give us an excuse to wreak death and destruction on foreigners. It is more sensible to believe that we're in the grip of a bad, built-in heuristic (gamblers' fallacy anyone?) than that somehow the entire public dialogue is deliberately and effectively scewed.
On the bad side, it seems like it will be pretty hard for anyone to stop thinking in this fashion. Some kind of well trained experts might be able to trump these impulses when making judgements about risk and response, but most of us will not. (This appears extra-true of Dubya. Has there ever been a president that put so much store in gut feelings? And stuck with them despite all contrary evidence? And even considers his intuitions to be signs of divine freakin' will?! Sorry, I digress...) And since a republican state will always be more responsive to majority opinion than that a few experts, we can expect public policy in these areas to systematically lean towards crime and terror prevention, and to natural disaster cleanup. Is it rational? Well no, but given the alternatives to democraitc governance, I think we'll just have to suck it up.
I have to disagree with your statement that if 10 people were killed in an chemical plant accident that no one would care.
There are an obscene number of reporters and such outside where I work. Why? Because the miner who survived the Sago mine explosion was transferred to the hospital here, which is connected to the building where I work. (Rumor even has it that the reporters have been such a nuisance at the hospital that they were told that if they were seen anywhere outside the cafeteria they'd be removed by security)
However, if ten (or thirteen) people were killed or injured in an accident on the freeway, would it garner national attention? Probably not.
The American media likes to report on unique events. That's what makes the story. A disaster at a chemical plant? That doesn't happen every day, so that's news.
However, what I noticed you not mentioning was the response to the disaster. If we have something that looks like a terrorist event, you can bet that "the government" will be pushing for more bills to allow them to snoop on "bad guys."
The Sago mine explosion? How much cry have you seen for strengthening MSHA? How about providing more mine inspectors to look for safety violations? How about increasing fines for these safety violations to more than $250?
The more interesting question (to me) Is who determines the response that the government makes to disasters? Why does a terrorist incident, over which we have little control, receive tremendous response, when an industrial accident, over which we (theoretically) have a great deal of control, receive little or no governmental response?
In my opinion, the focus on the families and the survivors of such accidents is used to shift focus away from why the incident occurred in the first place, and who is responible for the incident.
As far as your first question as to risk-adverse? My observation is that if it involves regulating business, there is no problem, if it involves regulating individuals, it's a problem that needs attention.
That's just my observation though.
Given that I am a Bush Hater it does not surprise me in the slightest. The current administration is "frantically risk adverse" to terrorism because it is politically expedient to them to do so. Admittedly, there is risk to be concerned about but I think our country's leadership knows what the risk really is.
It helps keep them in power. The Republican party has shamelessly used it to their benefit.
This phenomenon is not new either. Anytime there is a "threat" our government has used it to their benefit. FDR did in WWII, Wilson did it in WWI, McCarthy did with the Red Scare.
This also sets in motion the fear and bigotry of the general populace. These feed one of the other and it escalates. You examples of this during WWI and WWII.
The two comments above both explain the 'extra' risk aversion of the administration to terrorism by appealing to its political expediency. This is fine if all we want to do is feel morally superior to Bush &c., but does not serve as an answer to Winston's original question. After all, if the very lives - not to say livelyhoods - of millions of Americans is put at risk by global warming, then it would seem pretty damned politically expedient to do what it takes to prevent such a catastrophe. It's not like a massive mobilization against CO2 would not serve well as a pretext to expand executive power either. (What are such minor matters as property/privacy rights when we are confronted with this grave environmental/terrorist meanace?) Sure, FDR played WW2 for political advantage, but he played the depression the same way. If a politican can produce a policy that does reduce risks to the voters, and doesn't take political advantage of it, then he's an idiot. One of the main reasons electing leaders instead of pulling them out of a hat is that this is a relatively reliable way of assuring that political expediency and the interests of the public cooincide. The question is why risk aversion to terror is politically expedient and risk aversion to environental degradation is not.
William James long ago proposed that we treat solving major social problems as 'the moral equivalent of war'. That is, that we use the same mobilizing, heroic, failure-is-not-an-option spirit used to conquer countries to do things like end comunicable desease. This has been tried: We've had a war on poverty, a war on drugs, and even a war on poverty. The first and third have fizzled out. The second is only ever very warlike when waged on the people involved with drugs. There's clearly just something about faceless, inanimate, and unpunishable enemy that fails to get our hackles up, however lethal that enemy is.
Think "Armageddon" vs. "Star Wars". The planet you're on is going to be destroyed by this huge thing looming ever closer. A small group must brave great danger to blow the thing up. In "Star Wars", the huge thing is being driven by Peter Cushing and thousands of space Nazis. In "Armageddon", its just a big rock. Which is more satisfying to see get blown up?
Wow.
A bunch of extraordinarily interesting and thought-provoking comments here.
Thanks.
Wish I had something interesting to add...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home