Tom Postmes is a professor of social psychology at the RUG. Together with Katherine Stroebe, he is a leader of the research group Gronings perspectief, whose work focuses on the social impact of earthquake-related damage.
On Monday, you met with members for the Lower House during a work visit to Groningen focusing on the earthquakes. How did it go?
Postmes: It was an honour to be asked to meet with them and it was quite exciting to do it. More exciting than giving a lecture, anyway. But it was an enjoyable task to be given. I told them about our research [from Gronings perspectief] and I presented them with the knowledge agenda that KADO has developed.
And today you’re presenting a position paper during the hearing about the earthquakes and gas extraction operations. What do you hope to achieve?
Postmes: I see today as an opportunity to discuss a few key issues. It’s important to look beyond the snapshot of the effects of the earthquakes in the here and now, but to conduct research into the possible effects and potential solutions in the longer term as well. A cost-benefit analysis should be done. At the moment, attention is primarily paid to the short term costs, and I think that a better understanding of the social impact can help in creating a more accurate cost-benefit analysis.
In your position paper, you emphasise how severe the emotional and mental consequences of earthquake damage are for the people of Groningen. Do you feel that the impact that it has is still not actually taken seriously?
Postmes: No, I don’t have that impression. But I do think that many people still fail to realise just how many residents are impacted by this. Despite how much is already known about this issue, people are still apparently shocked to find out the true scope of it. And that is something that we discovered ourselves. We just looked at the areas within the postcodes where damage has been recognised by NAM, and we simply added up how many people live in those areas. It’s not rocket science, it was a very basic analysis. In total, that is 410,000 people. I didn’t even realise just how many people it impacted myself, and I’ve been following this issue for years. It’s not necessarily news, but it is important to know that.
To what extent do you think the research and reports so far have informed the current debate about the natural gas extraction?
Postmes: Locally, I think that it’s taken very seriously, and I also believe that there is a lot of attention paid to it nationally. The Lower House did not invite me to be there today for nothing. They want to hear this. I have full faith that people want to be kept informed about this issue, and I’m very curious to see what form that will take in the decisions that are made next week.
Read professor Postmes’ position paper, ‘Maatschappelijke effecten van gaswinning’, here.