Harvard University Press, 2007 - 340 pages
Nuclear bombs in suitcases, anthrax bacilli in ventilators, tsunamis and meteors, avian flu, scorchingly hot temperatures: nightmares that were once the plot of Hollywood movies are now frighteningly real possibilities. How can we steer a path between willful inaction and reckless overreaction? Cass Sunstein explores these and other worst-case scenarios and how we might best prevent them in this vivid, illuminating, and highly original analysis. Singling out the problems of terrorism and climate change, Sunstein explores our susceptibility to two opposite and unhelpful reactions: panic and utter neglect. He shows how private individuals and public officials might best respond to low-probability risks of disaster—emphasizing the need to know what we will lose from precautions as well as from inaction. Finally, he offers an understanding of the uses and limits of cost–benefit analysis, especially when current generations are imposing risks on future generations. Throughout, Sunstein uses climate change as a defining case, because it dramatically illustrates the underlying principles. But he also discusses terrorism, depletion of the ozone layer, genetic modification of food, hurricanes, and worst-case scenarios faced in our ordinary lives. Sunstein concludes that if we can avoid the twin dangers of overreaction and apathy, we will be able to ameliorate if not avoid future catastrophes, retaining our sanity as well as scarce resources that can be devoted to more constructive ends.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
able action American analysis approach asked assign associated attacks attention believe benefits Cambridge catastrophic Catastrophic Harm chance citizens climate change concern consider costs countries course create deal deaths decisions developing discount economic effects eliminate emissions environmental evidence example expected face fact favor fear follow future gain global greenhouse gas harm human idea important impose increase involved irreversible issue judgments kind Kyoto Protocol least less lives lose loss measures million monetary numbers objection option outcomes ozone particular people's percent Perhaps poor Posner possible Precautionary Principle precautions present probability problem produce protect question reason reduce regulation relevant require response result Review risk sense serious significant steps suggest Suppose supra note terrorism threat tion uncertainty United University Press unlikely warming worst worst-case scenarios