3 ms·
Most accept a potential "localized disaster"... as long as they aren't at risk themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NI
by natmaka 8y ago
Most accept a potential "localized disaster"... as long as they aren't at risk themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY ). Always letting the poorest directly assume such risk may be a good recipe for a global social catastrophe.
- Dylan16807 8y agoNIMBY doesn't automatically imply poorest. Regardless, I volunteer for the danger zone. The 99% worst case is merely evacuation, and expensive power plants pay for lots of nice thing with their taxes. Also insurance is a perfectly viable way to spread out risk so that no group of people is disadvantaged.
- natmaka 8y agoThe fact that you are not in NIMBY is possible, your arguments, albeit debatable (no insurance company offers any policy related to large-scale nuke risk), are acceptable, but nonetheless you sit in a tiny minority thinking this way. AFAIK everywhere the majority is stuck in NIMBY mode.
- Dylan16807 8y agoIf you were going to make a thousand power plants, I bet you could easily create such an insurance. But people are always going to be unrealistic about risk. So I dunno, ask people if they accept a tiny chance of localized disaster, and then ignore everything they say about their own location.
- ForHackernews 8y agoThe poorest in the world are most exposed to the risks of climate change. Building out nuclear power in developed countries would mean the globally wealthy assuming a fairer measure of the risks associated with their consumption.