|
|
| Fig. 1: Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant before the accident. (Source: Wikimedia Commons") |
On March 11, 2011, a major seismic movement of 9.1 magnitude, labelled the Great East Japan Earthquake, shook northern and eastern parts of Japan and created a tsunami that hit and caused the Fukushima Daichii nuclear power plant accident with a 15-meter high wave. Since this incident, debates about the dangers of nuclear power plants have spurred around the world even in Western countries like Germany. [1]
Prior to this incident, the public opinion regarding nuclear power plants were shown to have been increasing. Nuclear energy was even presented as a solution to global climate change. However, following the Fukushima accident, Japan took measures to significantly reduce productions of nuclear power. Germany shut down several reactors, Italy retracted their decision to relaunch the nuclear energy program, and Switzerland decided to phase out nuclear energy programs by 2034. [2] A survey done in May 2011 showed that of 19,000 adults surveyed in 24 different countries, more than 60 percent opposed nuclear power and 70 percent were against future nuclear building plans. [3] However, some reports and studies revealed that the transparency of the government regarding nuclear power plants is a large factor in the public opinion taking a large turn against nuclear energy. Hence, the more effective and communicative the government, the less damage they incur from natural disasters.
A paper published by Seinan Gakuin University mentions that "existing literature has shown that democratic nations and those with effective governments suffer less damage from natural disasters compared with other countries". [4] Furthermore, the government providing sufficient information to the public regarding nuclear energy allows people to form more rational, knowledgeable opinions that aren't as strongly shifted after a natural disaster caused accident. After carefully conducting surveys, the paper found that while in general the majority of countries and their support for nuclear energy declined, people in countries with governments that communicated data and information related to nuclear energy more often were less affected by the Fukushima accident.
These findings can be attributed to the idea that prior to these accidents, if the government provides adequate information about nuclear energy, risks, and the costs, the public would not be as shocked about the costs or risks that could come about after an accident. However, nuclear power plants are in fact expensive so many times, the expected costs they announce to the public is less than the actual cost. After an accident like Fukushima happens, the public then obtains information related to the costs which comes as a large surprise especially if they were not informed about it beforehand and thus lose trust in the government. If they had expected it, they would not be as shocked and not as many would radically change their opinion about nuclear power plants. [4]
In addition to the transparency of the government, other factors that studies have found to largely affect people's opinions regarding nuclear energy and installment of nuclear plants are distance of the countries to Fukushima, the building of new nuclear reactors, and the prominence of nuclear energy debates prior to the incident. Countries that were closer to the accident location, were in the midst of building new reactors, or had larger debates about nuclear energy reacted more negatively after the Fukushima incident. [5]
It is no doubt that the public opinion changes after an accident as large as Fukushima. However, it is important to look at factors that may have caused a larger shift in the public opinion for governments to better manage future public reactions in the future. Many reports have shown that countries closer to Fukushima, countries that had ongoing prominent debates about nuclear energy and power plants, and that were beginning to build new reactors were amongst the countries that reacted more negatively than others. Furthermore, another significant study pointed out that governments that were more open and transparent about the costs and risks of nuclear energy prior to the incident suffered less negative responses regarding nuclear power plants. This underscores the necessity of the government to balance transparency and effective policy to better manage the aftermath of accidents that can be caused by natural disasters.
© Amy Kang. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] A. Soni, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Investigating the Longitudinal Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Public Opinion in the United States," Energy Policy 122, 169 (2018).
[2] L. Bernardi et al., "The Effects of the Fukushima Disaster on Nuclear Energy Debates and Policies: a Two-Step Comparative Examination," Environ. Polit. 27, 42 (2018).
[3] F. Crettaz von Roten, A. Clcute;mence, and A. Thevenet. "Understanding Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy After the Fukushima Accident: Differences Between Asserted and Ambivalent Positions," Soc. Sci. Quart. 98, 659 (2917).
[4] E. Yamamura, "Transparency and Views Regarding Nuclear Energy Before and After the Fukushima Accident: Evidence on Micro-Data," Pac. Econ. Rev. 20, 761 (December 2015).
[5] E. Latré, T. Perko and P. Thijssen, "Public Opinion Change After the Fukushima Nuclear Accident: The Role of National Context Revisited," Energy Policy 104, 124 (2017).
