Proper,
rational risk analysis requires learning about the likelihood and magnitude of potential harm, as well as the cost and burden of both possible security measures, but also the alternative options.
But of course these reviews of climate science butt up against a similarly robust body of psychological and sociological work showing how hard it is for information, even reliable authoritative information, to break through the barriers within the human mind (not to mention our polarized politics) that can impede
rational risk management.
So on sea level rise, I'd
recommend rational risk analysis to Mr. Romm, because we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
«the most successful political movement of the past few decades, environmentalism, has relied so heavily on apocalypse: on the suspension
of rational risk assessments, and the stimulation of wild, runaway fantasies.
So to the extent that you have a rational economic model and
rational risk - reward embedded in contractual agreements and the rest of that kind of stuff, there's no reason ever to walk away from a customer.
In
a rational risk - weighting, the outcomes with greater cost dominate the total risk, increasingly as their likelihood is less well - constrained.
In that case,
a rational risk averse person willingly takes on a bet with negative expected value.
But instead of being terrified by climate change (to use his word), let's try
some rational risk analysis.
Though demographics are shifting and there is a significant amount of competition, most of the players in multifamily real estate appear to be making calculated,
rational risks.