This post was originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.
In the wake of the Texas blackouts, we're seeing a number of familiar moves to deflect blame by the usual suspects — politicians, regulators, and CEOs. These evasive tactics all begin with a core truth: Eliminating all risk is impossible and would be too expensive even if it weren't. But then they spin that truth in various ways. The result is to obscure responsibility for the disaster and the steps that should be taken going forward.
Here are some of the most common dodges — not counting such crass moves as blaming everything on the Green New Deal or the media.
Dodge #1: No one could have foreseen this event! This often sounds reasonable. How could anyone have foreseen that New Orleans' levees would simply collapse, or that a historic tsunami would hit the nuclear reactors at Fukushima? Yet it invariably seems to turn out that some reliable source did in fact foresee the risk. The Army Corps of Engineers' own lab had shown that levees on the region's soils could be undercut by high waters. Geologists had already found evidence of a similar past Japanese tsunami — admittedly, an extremely rare event, but one that would have been worth responding to given the extreme cost of a reactor flood. Similarly, although the exact event was not foreseen, Texas had already suffered serious blackouts in 2011 due to winter weather, and regulators had been warned repeatedly that major weather-proofing efforts were called for.
Dodge #2: Eliminating this risk would have been impractical! It may well be true that completely eliminating a risk would be impractical. But the choice isn't between wiping out a risk entirely and doing nothing. Maybe it would have been impractical to prevent any interruptions of service caused by a winter storm of this severity in Texas. That doesn't mean that a reasonable program of weatherization couldn't have limited the size of the blacked-out areas or the length of the blackouts.
Dodge #3: The market will fix this! Obviously, Japanese reactor owners have an interest in the safety of their reactors, and Texas generators have an interest in avoiding shutdowns. But the market won't fix catastrophic risks for two reasons.
First, companies don't have a sufficient incentive to avoid catastrophic risks. The shareholders won't have to pay if damages exceed the company's assets. Companies probably won't have to pay even that much, because the government is likely to engage in a bailout to avoid large-scale bankruptcies ("too big to fail").
Second, the market can't handle systemic risks. No single generator in Texas was in charge of its own fate, since it could be forced to shut down if other generators or transmission lines failed. Generator owners also lacked any incentive to take into account how the failure of their generators might impact other generators and their customers. The result was a classic case of market failure. That's why a coordinated response is needed, of the kind only government can provide. Texas regulators ignored that reality when they relied on voluntary action by industry to deal with weatherization needs.
No, we can't eliminate all risk. Nor can we expect any system to be perfect. Neither of those is an excuse for failing to make things better.
Showing 2,821 results
Daniel Farber | February 26, 2021
In the wake of the Texas blackouts, we're seeing a number of familiar moves to deflect blame by the usual suspects -- politicians, regulators, and CEOs. These evasive tactics all begin with a core truth: Eliminating all risk is impossible and would be too expensive even if it weren't. But then they spin that truth in various ways. The result is to obscure responsibility for the disaster and the steps that should be taken going forward.
Allison Stevens | February 25, 2021
Seven years ago, public officials in cash-strapped Flint, Michigan, cut city costs by tapping the Flint River as a source of public drinking water. So began the most egregious example of environmental injustice in recent U.S. history, according to Paul Mohai, a founder of the movement for environmental justice and a professor at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability.
Robert Verchick | February 24, 2021
Since I began serving on Louisiana’s Climate Initiatives Task Force, charged with finding a way to zero out net greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, there is one question I get from people more than any other: "C'mon, are you serious?" It's not that Louisianans don't see the need. Sea-level rise could soon swallow our coast, and hurricanes souped up by climate change are now the new normal. The problem is how we see ourselves. Louisiana, I'm reminded, is an oil-and-gas state. Whatever were we thinking? My quick response is Louisiana is really an energy state, with more sun and offshore wind than most of our peers.
Richard E. Levy, Robert L. Glicksman | February 23, 2021
Since taking office, President Biden has pursued an active agenda to address many urgent matters that require his prompt attention. We hope one important initiative does not get lost in transition: restoring the norms of good governance.
Alexandra Klass | February 22, 2021
It is now a week out from the start of the massive Texas grid failure that has resulted in numerous deaths; millions of people plunged into darkness; scores of communities without clean water or heat in record cold temperatures; and billions of dollars in catastrophic damage to homes, businesses and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Critical questions surround the causes of this massive disaster and how to plan for the future so that a tragedy of this scale does not happen again.
Dan Rohlf | February 22, 2021
As the U.S. Senate considers President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees, one stands out as much for the position he was appointed to as for his impressive qualifications. Two days before his inauguration, Biden announced that he planned to elevate the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), often referred to as the president’s science advisor, to Cabinet rank. The move underlines Biden’s break with the previous administration’s de-emphasis and politicization of science, which downplayed climate change, sought to slash climate-related research spending, and crafted rules designed to limit the influence of science in agency decisionmaking. Biden tapped geneticist Eric Lander, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, to lead OSTP into new prominence.
Maggie Dewane | February 19, 2021
Intersectional environmentalism is a relatively new phrase that refers to a more inclusive form of environmentalism, one that ties anti-racist principles into sectors that have long profited from overlooking or ignoring historically disenfranchised populations.
Amy Sinden | February 18, 2021
In the midst of this long dark winter, it's heartening to see the Biden administration lay out a bold agenda for a more secure, fair, and sustainable future. Holding the Biden administration to its promise to reform the regulatory process to "ensure swift and effective federal action" to "improve the lives of the American people" is a crucial part of that effort. From her perch on a key congressional committee with oversight over agencies and the rulemaking process, the Delaware Valley's own Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon is well-positioned to do just that.
Minor Sinclair | February 18, 2021
As many of you know, I started as the Center for Progressive Reform's new executive director this month. I am thrilled to join CPR in this historic moment, to commit the next stage of my life to fight for the integrity and strength of our democracy, and to establish, as FDR said 90 years ago, "the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved."