Responsible Leadership in the Face of Disaster

By Cornelius Adebahr11.04.2011Global Policy

The catastrophe in Fukushima puts many supposed truths about nuclear energy into question. Politicians need to address three basic points: the potential for worst-case scenarios, the long-term effects of radioactivity and the public’s demand for transparency. Events in Japan might prove to be a crucial turning-point in global energy policy.

Following the earthquake and the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, a state of shock, intuitive defensive-ness and frantic political activity of those in charge of utility companies as well as in governments across Europe are more than understandable reactions. Nevertheless, they are not helpful with re-gard to the key questions concerning the future of our societies. Instead, we need to take a strategic and sustainable decision on how we want to deal with techno-logical risks. This especially concerns the prospective transformation of the European energy sector, with power supply being a key element of industrial development and human wealth, as well as of the fight against climate change. Such a decision, in turn, has to be based on an objective fact-oriented discussion which at the same time considers the emotional turmoil and fears many people harbour towards technological disaster. Here, we expect guidance and responsible leadership from government, parliament and utility companies alike. Already in 1979, the philosopher Hans Jonas established moral guidelines regarding the potentially destructive impact of modern technologies. Based on his “imperative of responsibility” as a funda-mental principle, we argue that the concept of Responsible Leadership has to encompass the follow-ing key aspects. 1. Above all, Responsible Leadership entails to face the effects of one’s own actions to their final consequences. Pre-eminently, this means acknowledging that humans are fallible and technolo-gies are prone to errors. In the light of potentially disastrous incidents – whether caused by hu-man mistakes, technical accidents, sabotage or the forces of nature – it is necessary to seriously consider the worst possible case. This worst-case scenario has to be assessed as a genuine possi-bility rather than being trivialised as a residual risk. Other than for technologies with spatially and temporally limited impacts, the extent and probability of potentially global and cross-generational damages ought not to be considered in a purely calculatory way. 2. Furthermore, Responsible Leadership has to include a perspective of global sustainability as a keystone of decisions and actions. We all are responsible for preserving the basic preconditions for human existence. Thus, the consequences of uncontrollable technological accidents as well as the impact of waste products – whether it be greenhouse gases, toxins or nuclear waste – upon the biosphere will always also be borne by people who had no opportunity to decide for or against the use of a certain technology. Simply because they live in a country also affected or be-cause they have not been born yet. 3. Finally, Responsible Leadership means leading an open, objective and honest discussion in soci-ety. Within this debate, the opportunities and risks of technologies have to be assessed and key questions regarding options, costs and consequences have to be answered. These assessments and answers then constitute the basis for democratic decision-making, which when the discus-sion comes to certain key societal questions – such as human cloning, preimplantation diagnosis or nuclear power – should not be corrupted by tactical manoeuvres and political hassle. The incidents in Japan concern all humankind. Consequently, it is precisely not a sign of irreverence or cynicism if people around the world are asking what the catastrophe in Japan bodes for them all. That they might come to different conclusions is nothing but legitimate. What is important is that they lead this discussion in the first place, and that they do so openly and honestly with a view to the potential consequences of their actions. _The article was jointly written with Niklas Niemann and Marcel Viëtor._

COMMENTS

MOST COMMENTED

Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

What decisions would we make if we deliberated carefully about public policy? Alexander Görlach sat down with Stanford's James Fishkin to discuss deliberative democracy, parliamentary discontent, and the future of the two-party system.

A Violent Tea Party?

For many Europeans the massacre in Arizona is another evidence that political violence is spreading in the United States but this unfortunate event was the deed of a mentally ill person, not a political activist. There is no evidence of an increasing political extremism tearing America apart. Using

Passage to India

The US and Russia don't agree on much - but they are both keen to develop a good relationship with India. How do we know? Look at the arms trade.

"Cities are making us more human"

More than 50 percent of the world's population now live in cities – and there is no end of urbanization in sight. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser believes urbanization to be a solution to many unanswered problems: pollution, depression and a lack of creativity. He spoke with Lars Mensel about the

No Glove, No Love

Contrary to the mantras repeated by the press, HIV infections are not increasing. We need to move away from activist scare tactics and towards complex risk management strategies.

Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept

Nick Bostrom directs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He talked with Martin Eiermann about existential risks, genetic enhancements and the importance of ethical discourses about technological progress.

Mobile Sliding Menu