Emergency Broadcast System
BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP
This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The broadcasters of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency. If this had been an actual emergency, the Attention Signal you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions. This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/ebs.htm
Interesting this the EBS was set up due to the threat of nuclear attack, and later extended to include local weather threats.
Communication in times of crisis can be critical, although what message to offer at these times may be less than clear, and even counter productive to individual well being.
If there's a nuclear attack (or any WMD attack - chemical, biological or nuclear) in downtown metropolis, perhaps the BEST choice is for people nearby to travel away from ground zero as fast as possible to minimize exposure to radiation. On the other hand, the roadways are not set up for a free-for-all evacuation, so faced with an impossible panic which will allow no one to escape, it's better to tell people to stay in their basements to leave the roads open for emergency traffic, and those smart enough to ignore the recommendation.
The September 11, 2001 attack did not trigger a national message on the EBS to my knowledge, or at least not locally. I was asleep during the attack, and was notified by my dad by phone and the TV programs were pre-empted with news on the events as they unfolded.
Overall perhaps general muddled preemptive use of media is the best we can handle in times of unpredictable catastrophic emergencies.
Just like our "Emergency rooms" in hospitals, maybe we're pretty good with using our skills and intelligence to focus on immediate problems.
It seems to me that a harder response is for emergencies that occur over a slower period. You would think we'd be better at responding to slower events, but it may be the opposite is true, at least we're no better at responding. Fast events can be "over" before we can do anything, and then we're left with reacting to the results. Slower events give us time to react before the maximum harm and we can consider different reactions which may make things better or worse than had we done nothing.
Economics seems a place of generally "slow" crises. Economics has decisions that help the overall well-being of a group AND individual well-being, and given time to react people's individual decisions can make things worse for all. Like the bank runs in the great depression of the 1930's. Or worse - stock market buying and selling. Anyone invested in stocks who can't afford 100% loss is a herd animal waiting to bolt the first sign of danger.
I can't really imagine if peak oil threats will lead to overreactions, but certainly gas stations are "bottle-necks" to our transportation system that can be mobbed under rumors of price spikes or limited supply.
It's a silly way to panic - especially given the limited range of a "single tank of gas" - Well a conservative driver could probably keep a tank of gas for a couple months if needed, but probably most of the panicked people rushing the gas stations will have "needs" that will empty them again in under a week.
Given "panic attacks" by mobs, it's hard to tell if the EBS could be used to quell the fear.
Probably it's format would cause the reverse as it would legitimize the panic. Public announcements by a high government official would do better - Governor, or President.
It seems to me very likely such panic attacks WILL occur in the coming decades as short term shortages and price spikes come into play.
In some ways I imagine such overreactions are necessary for consolidating power enough for leaders to react to our dangers. I mean that in a negative, manipulative way, but maybe still necessary to exploit fear that has previously only been bubbling quietly beneath the surface.
Ideally a "paternalistic" society should keep crises pretty much secret from the wider community UNTIL the government is ready to offer a response to them. I mean as a father you don't worry your children about a threat of losing your job. Instead you just try to save as much as you can, and if/when the fateful day occurs, you'll be ready to break the news while having resources to buffer the short term effects to something that is acceptable.
Given that coal and nuclear power are the only two large-scale "under-utilized" energy resources available to our ummmm "over-achieving" society, the best plans for the government is to invest in these alternative energy sources to the degree possible, and when crisis occurs, be prepared to SELL them as "nearly ready" and "our only choices".
Also after periods of crisis/shortages, the government can act on crisis management in conserving and properly allocating resources where they're most needed. That's the nice thought, although in reality, market forces will handle things perfectly well.
It is an interesting question. GIVEN short-term shortages, IS it immoral to profit by raising prices?
If I'm a gas station owner, faced by 3 weeks of no new supplies and 4 blocks of cars lined up for my gasoline, what should I do? Raising prices cause more panic, while not raising prices encourages my reserves to be depleted too quickly.
The only legitimate response to shortages is a system of rationing. The government ought to pass laws that says all fuel sales have to use ration coupons, which are purchased from the government. Coupons might be nontransferable as well to prevent fraud or scalping.
The advantage of this system is consumption is controlled and the government profits from the shortages rather than individual gas station owners, even if the government chooses to reimburse station owners for participating in the system.
I'd expect such a system to be set up given projections of medium term shortages (multiple months).
A proactive government might prepare such a system right now, BEFORE crisis. A paternalistic government would do it secretively to prevent panic.
Perhaps these crises will never happen. Perhaps we're just a "blessed time" where resources always become available just when they're needed.
However given terrorism, and 60% of our oil now imported, I would say such a system is best implemented sooner than later.
Going along with the logic, if a government can implement a rationing system AFTER shortages, what about BEFORE shortages?
Republicans will dislike interference in "free markets", even if they might acknowledge the "fear profiteering" is immoral.
At the current, we have "excise taxes" applied to fuels. As long as supply can meet demand, why set up a rationing system?
I don't have time to answer now, but a question worthy of further thought.
This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The broadcasters of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency. If this had been an actual emergency, the Attention Signal you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions. This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/ebs.htm
Interesting this the EBS was set up due to the threat of nuclear attack, and later extended to include local weather threats.
Communication in times of crisis can be critical, although what message to offer at these times may be less than clear, and even counter productive to individual well being.
If there's a nuclear attack (or any WMD attack - chemical, biological or nuclear) in downtown metropolis, perhaps the BEST choice is for people nearby to travel away from ground zero as fast as possible to minimize exposure to radiation. On the other hand, the roadways are not set up for a free-for-all evacuation, so faced with an impossible panic which will allow no one to escape, it's better to tell people to stay in their basements to leave the roads open for emergency traffic, and those smart enough to ignore the recommendation.
The September 11, 2001 attack did not trigger a national message on the EBS to my knowledge, or at least not locally. I was asleep during the attack, and was notified by my dad by phone and the TV programs were pre-empted with news on the events as they unfolded.
Overall perhaps general muddled preemptive use of media is the best we can handle in times of unpredictable catastrophic emergencies.
Just like our "Emergency rooms" in hospitals, maybe we're pretty good with using our skills and intelligence to focus on immediate problems.
It seems to me that a harder response is for emergencies that occur over a slower period. You would think we'd be better at responding to slower events, but it may be the opposite is true, at least we're no better at responding. Fast events can be "over" before we can do anything, and then we're left with reacting to the results. Slower events give us time to react before the maximum harm and we can consider different reactions which may make things better or worse than had we done nothing.
Economics seems a place of generally "slow" crises. Economics has decisions that help the overall well-being of a group AND individual well-being, and given time to react people's individual decisions can make things worse for all. Like the bank runs in the great depression of the 1930's. Or worse - stock market buying and selling. Anyone invested in stocks who can't afford 100% loss is a herd animal waiting to bolt the first sign of danger.
I can't really imagine if peak oil threats will lead to overreactions, but certainly gas stations are "bottle-necks" to our transportation system that can be mobbed under rumors of price spikes or limited supply.
It's a silly way to panic - especially given the limited range of a "single tank of gas" - Well a conservative driver could probably keep a tank of gas for a couple months if needed, but probably most of the panicked people rushing the gas stations will have "needs" that will empty them again in under a week.
Given "panic attacks" by mobs, it's hard to tell if the EBS could be used to quell the fear.
Probably it's format would cause the reverse as it would legitimize the panic. Public announcements by a high government official would do better - Governor, or President.
It seems to me very likely such panic attacks WILL occur in the coming decades as short term shortages and price spikes come into play.
In some ways I imagine such overreactions are necessary for consolidating power enough for leaders to react to our dangers. I mean that in a negative, manipulative way, but maybe still necessary to exploit fear that has previously only been bubbling quietly beneath the surface.
Ideally a "paternalistic" society should keep crises pretty much secret from the wider community UNTIL the government is ready to offer a response to them. I mean as a father you don't worry your children about a threat of losing your job. Instead you just try to save as much as you can, and if/when the fateful day occurs, you'll be ready to break the news while having resources to buffer the short term effects to something that is acceptable.
Given that coal and nuclear power are the only two large-scale "under-utilized" energy resources available to our ummmm "over-achieving" society, the best plans for the government is to invest in these alternative energy sources to the degree possible, and when crisis occurs, be prepared to SELL them as "nearly ready" and "our only choices".
Also after periods of crisis/shortages, the government can act on crisis management in conserving and properly allocating resources where they're most needed. That's the nice thought, although in reality, market forces will handle things perfectly well.
It is an interesting question. GIVEN short-term shortages, IS it immoral to profit by raising prices?
If I'm a gas station owner, faced by 3 weeks of no new supplies and 4 blocks of cars lined up for my gasoline, what should I do? Raising prices cause more panic, while not raising prices encourages my reserves to be depleted too quickly.
The only legitimate response to shortages is a system of rationing. The government ought to pass laws that says all fuel sales have to use ration coupons, which are purchased from the government. Coupons might be nontransferable as well to prevent fraud or scalping.
The advantage of this system is consumption is controlled and the government profits from the shortages rather than individual gas station owners, even if the government chooses to reimburse station owners for participating in the system.
I'd expect such a system to be set up given projections of medium term shortages (multiple months).
A proactive government might prepare such a system right now, BEFORE crisis. A paternalistic government would do it secretively to prevent panic.
Perhaps these crises will never happen. Perhaps we're just a "blessed time" where resources always become available just when they're needed.
However given terrorism, and 60% of our oil now imported, I would say such a system is best implemented sooner than later.
Going along with the logic, if a government can implement a rationing system AFTER shortages, what about BEFORE shortages?
Republicans will dislike interference in "free markets", even if they might acknowledge the "fear profiteering" is immoral.
At the current, we have "excise taxes" applied to fuels. As long as supply can meet demand, why set up a rationing system?
I don't have time to answer now, but a question worthy of further thought.
posted by Ares Olympus at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home