Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the Role of Deliberation

Like radioactive waste, municipal solid waste (MSW) requires consideration of a complex mix of intergenerational and intragenerational risks surrounded by uncertain science. Unlike radioactive waste, MSW is a common problem and hence one often perceived to be controllable, at least until a required facility is proposed in a particular community. The intragenerational risks focused on local communities rouse intense public pressures for management. Although some of the risks can be quantified, the risk assessment process cannot deal with all questions. This article examines the multiple dimensions of the decisions required to be made and the weaknesses of a number of decision tools traditionally used. A case is made for the need to integrate decision tools appropriate to the risks into reflexive and iterative decision processes open to public involvement. It is argued that this presents the best hope of both optimizing decisions about the intragenerational risks as well as raising public debate about the importance of sustainable waste management in transgenerational terms.     

On Intergenerational Equity and Its Clash with Intragenerational Equity and on the Need for Policies to Guide the Regulation of Disposal of Wastes and Other Activities Posing Very Long-Term Risks

This article begins with some history of the derivation of 40 CFR Part 191, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard that governs the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes. This is followed by criticisms of the standard that were made by a Sub-Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and by a panel of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. The large disparity in the EPA approaches to regulation of disposal of radioactive wastes and disposal of hazardous, long-lived, nonradioactive chemical waste is illustrated. An examination of the intertwined matters of intergenerational equity and the discounting of future health effects follows, together with a discussion of the conflict between intergenerational equity and intragenerational equity. Finally, issues related to assumptions in the regulations concerning the future state of society and the biosphere are treated, as is the absence of any national philosophy or guiding policy for how to deal with societal activities that pose very long-term risks.     

Intergenerational Issues Regarding Nuclear Power, Nuclear Waste, and Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons raise substantial public concern in many countries. While new support for nuclear power can be found in arguments concerning greenhouse gases and global warming, the long-term existence of radioactive waste has led to requirements for 10,000-year isolation. Some of the support for such requirements is based on intergenerational equity arguments. This, however, places a very high value on lives far in the future. An alternative is to use discounting, as is applied to other resource applications. Nuclear weapons, even though being dismantled by the major nations, are growing in number due to the increase in the number of countries possessing these weapons of mass destruction. This is an unfortunate legacy for future generations.     

Intergenerational Risk Decision Making: A Practical Example

There is no such thing as intergenerational decision making, at least not yet. In fact, there is no such thing as intragenerational decision making in the context of maximizing overall social good given resource limitations, there are just decisions being made in an ad hoc fashion. Even if one assumes that there is such a thing as intragenerational decision making, no uniform standard or guidance exists to make societal decisions for the common good. Risks to society are judged unevenly within the same agency and across agencies. Decisions are made in isolation and not weighed in the societal context of what is intra or intergenerationally important. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has set forth a framework for intergenerational decision making that provides a consistent and fair basis for making tough decisions in order to address difficult issues such as the long-term disposal of nuclear wastes. NAPA recognizes that there is an intergenerational obligation that must encompass broader questions than the narrow issue of waste disposal since resources are finite and needs are great. The fundamental principles are based on sustainability with the overarching objective that "no generation should needlessly, now or in the future, deprive its successors of the opportunity to enjoy a quality of life equivalent to its own." Coupled with this objective are four supporting principles of trusteeship, sustainability, chain of obligation, and precaution. The NAPA process also recognizes that no decision can be final and that a "rolling future" view is better than making decisions for "all time." It attempts to balance the needs of the present with those of the future in an open and transparent process that is aimed at producing a decision, not just endless analysis. The U.S. Congress and president should develop a rational standard by which to judge laws that involve intra and intergenerational issues relative to the overall societal good. Present regulations need to be evaluated relative to a uniform level of risk and benefit to assess where the limited money available can do the most good for both the present and future generations in the context of NAPA sustainability principles. It is hoped that decision makers will take a serious look at this process since it can work to resolve stakeholder stalemate.     

Conjoint effects of interacting strategy-making processes and lines of defense practices in strategic Risk Management: An empirical study

The ability to contain adverse effects of major risks under turbulent conditions and exploit the opportunities they present are fundamental concerns in strategic management and various institutions promote enterprise risk management (ERM) to deal with these challenges. Yet, our knowledge about how ERM affects performance and interacts with corporate strategy-making processes is limited. The ERM frameworks impose first and second lines of defense practices to integrate business operations and corporate risk oversight. Emergent strategies generate responsive initiatives and strategic planning coordinates updated actions. Hence, this study analyzes the conjoint effects of these ERM practices and strategy-making processes based on a large corporate sample and finds that ERM practices depend on strategy-making to attain effective risk outcomes. The application of ERM frameworks can, therefore, not be assessed in isolation, but must consider corporate strategy-making. This has implications for the way we conduct research on strategic risk management, how executives approach risk oversight and policy-makers impose formal risk governance requirements.     

Equity, Efficiency, Uncertainty, and the Mitigation of Global Climate Change

Policies to mitigate potential damages from global climate change impose costs on the current generation to provide benefits to future generations. This article examines how comparisons among three stylized policies-business-as-usual, mitigation of climate change, and compensation for climate damages-depend on social preferences with respect to risk and intertemporal equity. Also examined is the opportunity-cost criterion, which asserts that mitigation should not be chosen if its net present value is smaller than that of business-as-usual. Analysis reveals that the discount factor used to evaluate whether mitigation satisfies this criterion depends on preferences regarding risk and intertemporal inequality of consumption, and on the risk of the compensation policy. Risk aversion favors mitigation over business-as-usual. If society is neutral to inequality, risk aversion disfavors compensation, but if society is inequality averse, the effect of risk aversion on preferences between compensation and business-as-usual is ambiguous. Inequality aversion tends to favor business-as-usual over both alternative policies provided that, roughly speaking, the anticipated future improvements in welfare exceed the anticipated climate damages.     

Embracing risk as a core competence: The case of CEMEX

In this paper we argue that risk management can be an important source of competitive advantage for firms. For this to happen, managers must overcome four deep-seated notions about the management of risk: the myopic conception that risk is a collection of unconnected threats to the survival of a firm, the belief that risk management is largely a financial activity, the idea that risk management is solely a top management team task, and a blind faith that CEOs can continuously anticipate the risks that firms must address on an ongoing basis. Challenging these four misconceptions reveals that risk management can be an activity that is value creating, not just value preserving. Indeed, rather than indiscriminately shedding all types of risks, companies can develop new sources of competitive advantage by embracing those risks that they are relatively better at managing than their rivals. We illustrate our arguments by analyzing the risk management practices at CEMEX, the Mexican cement manufacturer.     

Discounting Compensation for Injuries

The reasons commonly given for discounting future costs and benefits are doubtfully applicable to future injuries: in particular, time preference justifies neither inter- nor intragenerational discounting. The cost of future injuries could be discounted on grounds that a smaller sum, invested at interest, is needed to pay a given level of ex post monetary compensation the further in the future the injury occurs. This effect is offset, however, by the diminishing marginal utility of compensation, if consumption is otherwise increasing. Depending on the elasticity of marginal utility of consumption, on whether consumption is growing at an optimal rate, and on the time period considered, the implicit discount rate may be positive, zero, or negative (even indefinitely so). There is no prospect of conventional discounting dealing appropriately with the cost of injuries to either future or present generations.     

Risks of Hazardous Waste Sites versus Asteroid and Comet Impacts: Accounting for the Discrepancies in U.S. Resource Allocation

Approximately $6 billion is spent annually in the United States on the cleanup of sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund). The current health risks posed by such sites are thought to be quite small; the expenditures are justified primarily as protecting hypothetical future residents of these sites. Approximately 0.05% of this amount, or $3 million, is spent annually by the U.S. government on the detection of asteroids or comets that could strike the earth. Such damaging impacts do occur from time to time--most recently in 1908 in an unpopulated region of Siberia--but no person is confirmed ever to have died as a result. Anticipated impacts over the course of 1 million years would yield deaths that, when annualized, total approximately 4,000 per year. The risk reduction goal for CERCLA is 15 orders of magnitude greater than that for asteroid/comet detection. A modest increase in resources devoted to asteroid detection would greatly increase the chances of early detection of a threatening object, allowing an effective defense to be attempted. This article argues that the much lower risk-to-resources ratio for CERCLA cleanups than for asteroid and comet detection can be explained by four primary factors: (1) the regard for future generations, since CERCLA benefits mainly the unborn; (2) concrete fears, since toxics are much more feared than asteroids or comets; (3) the source of the threat, since toxic contamination is caused by human beings, unlike impacts from space objects; and (4) the greater political constituencies for hazardous waste cleanup than for space object detection.     

Risk-Risk Balancing for Hazardous Waste Workers: Alternative Work, Traffic Fatalities, and Unemployment

Previous studies have shown that the fatality rate among hazardous waste remediation workers is likely to exceed the fatality rate averted among the public by remediation. The implication is that much hazardous waste remediation is inappropriate on a strictly risk-based basis. Such analyses ignore the fact that the same hazardous waste workers would be engaged in other work with similar or perhaps greater safety risks, and that in any case the single greatest cause of occupational fatalities is traffic accidents, hence distance traveled may be a more important predictor than type of work performed.     

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high-level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit-cost model and a risk-perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.     

Safe and Sorry: Risk, Environmental Equity, and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

Many empirical environmental equity analyses have attempted to determine if hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs) are in disproportionately minority or low-income areas. These prior analyses did not explain the extent of the risks posed by TSDFs, nor did they weight the distribution of those risks by the individual characteristics of the TSDFs. This study evaluated the risks posed by TSDFs in general and then examined whether any such risks were distributed inequitably when each TSDF was weighted by the amount of hazardous waste that it managed. Based on an assessment of the nature of the hazardous wastes that TSDFs manage, the possible exposure paths to risk from TSDFs, the laws designed to minimize the risks that TSDFs pose, and TSDFs' safety records, the attention devoted to TSDFs by environmental equity researchers is greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, based on this study's analyses, there was no pattern of the TSDFs or the risks that they posed being inequitably concentrated in disproportionately minority or low-income areas. Most of the TSDFs and the hazardous waste that they manage are in areas that are either unpopulated or have fewer minority or low-income people than the national average. There are, however, some TSDFs that are in highly populated, heavily minority or low-income areas, which results in such people being more likely overall to be in close proximity to these facilities.     

Consideration of Background Exposures in the Management of Hazardous Waste Sites: A New Approach to Risk Assessment

The current approach to health risk assessment of toxic waste sites in the U.S. may lead to considerable expenditure of resources without any meaningful reduction in population exposure. Risk assessment methods used generally ignore background exposures and consider only incremental risk estimates for maximally exposed individuals. Such risk estimates do not address true public health risks to which background exposures also contribute. The purpose of this paper is to recommend a new approach to risk assessment and risk management concerning toxic waste sites. Under this new approach, which we have called public health risk assessment, chemical substances would be classified into a level of concern based on the potential health risks associated with typical national and regional background exposures. Site assessment would then be based on the level of concern for the particular pollutants involved and the potential contribution of site contaminants to typical background human exposures. While various problems can be foreseen with this approach, the key advantage is that resources would be allocated to reduce the most important sources of human exposure, and site remediation decisions could be simplified by focussing on exposure assessment rather than questionable risk extrapolations.     

宏观金融风险与政府财政责任

宏观金融风险属于公共风险,其责任主体是政府,而微观金融风险属于个体(私人)风险,其责任主体是金融机构。中国的宏观金融风险仍处于发散状态,呈现出行业特性(风险业)与金融转轨风险“叠加”的特征。当前的金融改革既是防范宏观金融风险的战略举措,其改革本身也是宏观金融风险的重要来源。政府防范宏观金融风险需要改变“一事一议”的个案方式,迫切需要建立防范和化解金融风险、金融危机的应急反应机制,并把宏观金融风险纳入国家财政风险管理框架,以避免政府财政责任变为仅仅是事后买单。     

A Critical Look at Risk Assessments for Global Catastrophes

Recent articles by Busza et al. (BJSW) and Dar et al. (DDH) argue that astrophysical data can be used to establish small bounds on the risk of a "killer strangelet" catastrophe scenario in the RHIC and ALICE collider experiments. The case for the safety of the experiments set out by BJSW does not rely solely on these bounds, but on theoretical arguments, which BJSW find sufficiently compelling to firmly exclude any possibility of catastrophe. Nonetheless, DDH and other commentators (initially including BJSW) suggested that these empirical bounds alone do give sufficient reassurance. This seems unsupportable when the bounds are expressed in terms of expectation value-a good measure, according to standard risk analysis arguments. For example, DDH's main bound, p(catastrophe) < 2 x 10(-8), implies only that the expectation value of the number of deaths is bounded by 120; BJSW's most conservative bound implies the expectation value of the number of deaths is bounded by 60,000. This article reappraises the DDH and BJSW risk bounds by comparing risk policy in other areas. For example, it is noted that, even if highly risk-tolerant assumptions are made and no value is placed on the lives of future generations, a catastrophe risk no higher than approximately 10(-15) per year would be required for consistency with established policy for radiation hazard risk minimization. Allowing for risk aversion and for future lives, a respectable case can be made for requiring a bound many orders of magnitude smaller. In summary, the costs of small risks of catastrophe have been significantly underestimated by BJSW (initially), by DDH, and by other commentators. Future policy on catastrophe risks would be more rational, and more deserving of public trust, if acceptable risk bounds were generally agreed upon ahead of time and if serious research on whether those bounds could indeed be guaranteed was carried out well in advance of any hypothetically risky experiment, with the relevant debates involving experts with no stake in the experiments under consideration.     

Small Group Studies of Regulatory Decision-Making for Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields

Three groups of lay opinion leaders were used in a group role-playing decision exercise designed to explore problems in public risk management decision-making. The application domain was possible risks from the 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with high-voltage power transmission lines. While there were differences in the make-up and dynamics of the three groups, the structure and substantive content of the tasks undertaken dominated intergroup variation in terms of the factors that were most important to group members' decisions. The groups displayed sophistication in their identification of decision attributes and in many of the arguments they advanced, but experienced difficulties in structuring and making trade-offs and decisions. The groups were not good at normalizing or otherwise manipulating quantitative information, and used it largely in the form it was received. Upper-bound risk estimates were treated operationally in most group discussions as expected values. Several kinds of strong framing effects were observed in the use of cost and risk information. Specific quantitative results obtained must be treated with care but may provide a starting place for further work on the acceptable level of transmission line risk.     

Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination and Attitudes toward Decontamination Strategies

Contaminated soils are a common environmental risk all over the world. One major source of risk is heavy metal soil contamination caused by industrial emissions. This quasiexperimental study investigated the perception of these risks by exposed and nonexposed people, their attitudes toward bioremediation methods using hyperaccumulating plants, and the influence of long-term aspects of sustainability on the acceptance of bioremediation methods. Major findings were that people living in a contaminated area perceived the risk of the heavy metal soil contamination as higher than the general risk of contamination. Second, a factor analysis showed that the factors dread, control, and catastrophic potential were relevant for the perception and valuation of low-dose environmental risks such as the contamination of the investigated area. In addition, a cluster analysis showed that the risk of heavy metal soil contamination was perceived as similar to that of oil contamination, ozone layer, preservatives and genetic technology. It was perceived indifferently with regard to dread. The uncontrollability of heavy metal soil contamination was estimated as medium, and its catastrophic potential as low. Third, exposed and nonexposed participants preferred bioremediation methods to classical methods (e.g., excavation and chemical treatment of the soil), because they perceived the environmental and esthetical performance of the bioremediation as important criteria. Sustainability or precautionary issues, such as the prevention of harm for future generations, were highly correlated with the acceptance of the use of bioremediation methods in people's residential areas.     

Intergenerational Considerations Affecting the Future of Nuclear Power: Equity as a Framework for Assessing Fuel Cycles

Alternative fuel cycles are being considered in an effort to prolong uranium fuel supplies for thousands of years to come and to manage nuclear waste. These strategies bring with them different benefits and burdens for the present generation and for future generations. In this article, we present a method that provides insight into future fuel cycle alternatives and into the conflicts arising between generations within the framework of intergenerational equity. A set of intersubjective values is drawn from the notion of sustainable development. By operationalizing these values and mapping out their impacts, value criteria are introduced for the assessment of fuel cycles, which are based on the distribution of burdens and benefits between generations. The once‐through fuel cycle currently deployed in the United States and three future fuel cycles are subsequently assessed according to these criteria. The four alternatives are then compared in an integrated analysis in which we shed light on the implicit tradeoffs made by decisionmakers when they choose a certain fuel cycle. When choosing a fuel cycle, what are the societal costs and burdens accepted for each generation and how can these factors be justified? This article presents an integrated decision‐making method, which considers intergenerational aspects of such decisions; this method could also be applied to other technologies.     

Generalized Utilitarianism and Harsanyi's Impartial Observer Theorem

Harsanyi's impartial observer must consider two types of lotteries: imaginary identity lotteries (“accidents of birth”) that she faces as herself and the real outcome lotteries (“life chances”) to be faced by the individuals she imagines becoming. If we maintain a distinction between identity and outcome lotteries, then Harsanyi‐like axioms yield generalized utilitarianism, and allow us to accommodate concerns about different individuals' risk attitudes and concerns about fairness. Requiring an impartial observer to be indifferent as to which individual should face similar risks restricts her social welfare function, but still allows her to accommodate fairness. Requiring an impartial observer to be indifferent between identity and outcome lotteries, however, forces her to ignore both fairness and different risk attitudes, and yields a new axiomatization of Harsanyi's utilitarianism.     

Health Risk Assessment for Planned Waste Incinerators: Getting the Right Science and the Science Right

Health risk assessment is widely advocated in the United Kingdom as the most comprehensive means of assessing the health risks posed by the emissions of a planned waste incinerator. Its main advantage over other methods of assessment, such as air quality impact assessment, is its ability to address explicitly the direct (inhalation) and indirect (ingestion and dermal contact) health risks posed by different chemicals, including those that are not thought to have a threshold below which no adverse effect will take place. This article examines the level and quality of the emissions assessments included in 61 waste incinerator environmental statements (ESs); in particular, it focuses on the quality of the exposure assessment and risk characterization stages of the health risk assessment process. The article concludes that the ES has not always provided interested stakeholders with the best available information upon which to determine the tolerability of the health risks posed by waste incinerator emissions Some recommendations are made as to how this problem might be addressed in future environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes.