TY - JOUR
T1 - When safety is relative
T2 - Ecological Modernisation theory and the nuclear safety regulatory regimes of France, the United Kingdom and United States
AU - Toke, David
N1 - Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the assistance of Antony Froggatt in securing research interviews.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - This paper analyses the differences in nuclear safety regulation between the USA and two European countries, France and the UK, using ecological modernisation (EM) as a theoretical framework. The EU aims to apply the precautionary principle to nuclear safety regulation. This may encourage greater public acceptance of nuclear risks which will benefit the nuclear industry economically through allowing continued operation and deployment. This may fit in with EM’s discourse favouring environmental regulation that increases economic efficiency. However, this is a weak version of EM since it involves negotiations with the industry rather than a ‘strong’ version of EM involving engagement with leading environmental NGOs who wish to avoid nuclear power altogether in favour of renewables. By contrast, the USA’s nuclear safety regulation is constrained by adherence to cost benefit analysis and not the precautionary principle which is associated with EM. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is dominated by political appointees in its leadership. Attempts to strengthen nuclear safety regulations are often opposed by Republicans who argue from a general position that stricter environmental regulations involve major increases in industry’s costs. However, this can lead to increased public argument about the regulations and resulting regulatory uncertainty may, paradoxically, increase regulatory costs.
AB - This paper analyses the differences in nuclear safety regulation between the USA and two European countries, France and the UK, using ecological modernisation (EM) as a theoretical framework. The EU aims to apply the precautionary principle to nuclear safety regulation. This may encourage greater public acceptance of nuclear risks which will benefit the nuclear industry economically through allowing continued operation and deployment. This may fit in with EM’s discourse favouring environmental regulation that increases economic efficiency. However, this is a weak version of EM since it involves negotiations with the industry rather than a ‘strong’ version of EM involving engagement with leading environmental NGOs who wish to avoid nuclear power altogether in favour of renewables. By contrast, the USA’s nuclear safety regulation is constrained by adherence to cost benefit analysis and not the precautionary principle which is associated with EM. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is dominated by political appointees in its leadership. Attempts to strengthen nuclear safety regulations are often opposed by Republicans who argue from a general position that stricter environmental regulations involve major increases in industry’s costs. However, this can lead to increased public argument about the regulations and resulting regulatory uncertainty may, paradoxically, increase regulatory costs.
KW - ecological modernisation
KW - nuclear power
KW - safety
KW - precautionary principle
KW - cost benefit analysis
U2 - 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102447
DO - 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102447
M3 - Article
VL - 86
JO - Energy Research & Social Science
JF - Energy Research & Social Science
SN - 2214-6296
M1 - 102447
ER -