Nuclear policy responses to Fukushima: Exit, voice, and loyalty

By M. V. Ramana | March 1, 2013

In the two years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents, countries around the world have responded to the Japanese catastrophe in a variety of ways. Broadly speaking, these policy responses fall into three categories: Within one group, countries have decided to turn away from nuclear power, either through a gradual phase-out or by abandoning plans for programs that had not yet begun. In the second group of countries, government leaders who were otherwise inclined to continue pursuing nuclear power were forced by protests and public opinion to change their policies. And in the third group, countries have reiterated their commitment to nuclear power. The author describes examples of countries within each of these categories. He identifies several common elements that seem to be at play in countries that are staying the course on nuclear power, including: hasty dismissals by government officials of the Fukushima accident’s applicability to their own countries, pronouncements about the safety of deployed or proposed reactor designs, propaganda campaigns, international financing for reactor construction, and an emphasis on projected growth in energy demand.

RELATED:
RELATED: About last night’s fracking comments in the debate

As the coronavirus crisis shows, we need science now more than ever.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Share: 

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

RELATED POSTS

Receive Email
Updates