Who supports nuclear power generation? The "twisted" support of Japanese public: From the results from public opinion survey in 2014

Using public opinion survey results in 2014, we analyzed public’s support for nuclear power generation in Japan. For measuring people’s “support”, we used three items. One is a) support for resuming operation of... [ view full abstract ]

Using public opinion survey results in 2014, we analyzed public’s support for nuclear power generation in Japan. For measuring people’s “support”, we used three items. One is a) support for resuming operation of current existing nuclear power generation plants in Japan. Currently all of them are not operated. Other two were, b) Anxiety for accidents of nuclear of plants, c) costs and benefits of nuclear power generation.
The most significant variable was the “Environment versus economy”. Respondents who chose “Economy” over “Environment” are more likely to a) support resuming operation, b) be more anxious for accidents, and c) emphasis risk than benefits. Some other demographic variables are also significant such as gender, age, income, and educational level.
We further explored the background of this result. According to our other survey results, the 2008 financial shock caused by the Lehman Brothers had a significant impact on Japanese society. At local level, people who lived in towns of nuclear power generation sites are now facing the risk of unemployment. Costs and benefits means the anxiety for possible accident of the plants and employments for those people.
Scientists often discuss about the safety of nuclear power generation. But people matter not only technological risks, but also everyday lives. Our results show that people who are higher in income, secure in their job status, and higher in education tended to support resuming nuclear power generation, and also tend to choose economy over environment. On the other hand, people who are not tended to support renewables, and to choose environment over economy.
How can we explain this “twisted” situation? People who are not better off put priority on safety over wealth, as they are more fragile when disasters happen. People who are better off put priority on economy over the environment, as keeping business as usual is the most risk-avoidable choice of theirs. Another explanation is the de-growth scenario. People who are currently not in better situation have already faced de-growth situation and have to accept it. But people who are currently in better situation want to keep their current lifestyle standard, and they actually can do it. This means that social inequality issue is behind the energy choice issues.