Dear Jon,
The nuclear energy lobby has been working very hard over the last few years to ‘de-stigmatise’ atomic energy. Framing the need to go nuclear within the climate change policy debate and the advantage of time going by that has helped people forget about the impacts of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (according to surveys amongst high school students in Germany, for example, young people are much less worried about nuclear reactors compared to a generation before them), has made the nuclear option less of a taboo than it used to be. In the meantime, however, nuclear energy has not become any less risky or costly. There still have not been any solutions proposed that deal with nuclear waste in a sustainable, permanent way and nuclear energy remains the most expensive form of energy when you consider military spending on nuclear technology as part of the R&D for nuclear energy and the externalised costs of radioactive contamination. In Europe, we know that nuclear power stations give off dangerous radiation; otherwise we would not build them predominantly along national borders. Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy: uranium does not only require mining techniques that are extremely dangerous to the environment and human health, but it is also a finite resource just as fossil fuels are.
It does not surprise me when you have the impression that former nuclear opponents have no interest in reopening the nuclear energy debate. It seems rather ludicrous when you consider that the arguments have not changed. What might have changed is the impact of the nuclear lobby on current governments. An expanded national nuclear energy programme supports not only some large multinational corporations that build such power plants but also the continued power of utilities that would become redundant in a decentralized supply of energy from renewable sources. Furthermore, it may contribute to the public acceptability of the internationally banned further development of nuclear weapons and use thereof as, for example, the United States has done in both Afganistan and Irak in the form of ‘bunker busters’, which is a euphemism for nuclear weapons. The situation surrounding Iran shows how closely linked the development of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons may be.
Thus what we are dealing with in the renaissance of the nuclear option is not due to technological advance or a lack of other energy alternatives, but the combined might of some large multinationals, large utilities and the weapons industry. That is not to be taken lightly.
The new German government has brought nuclear energy back on the policy table as a ‘temporary solution’ because it is relatively low in carbon emissions (but let’s also not forget, for example, the transport of nuclear materials that is carbon intensive), supposedly before renewable energy sources can be tapped to a larger extent. I find it strange that 35 million years of storage that nuclear waste requires would be deemed ‘temporary’ but I can understand that the public wants to tackle climate change. Let’s not be shortsighted, though. Jon, why not organize a workshop on barriers to energy efficiency and renewable energy policy implementation? I am sure you can explore some very interesting power games that are played out in this arena as well. Instead of reopening a debate that has long been resolved and talking our way into climate havoc, we should focus on real, achievable solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a safe way.
Good luck with your work,
Bettina.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Entine <
runjonrun@EARTHLINK.NET>
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:51:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Round two of climate science wars?
Dirk:
Thanks for your note. Very informative.
By ³hysterical², yes, I mean just that that in some quarters, as you
suggest, the issue cannot even be debated, it is considered a liberal litmus
test, and discussing the cost/benefits of nuclear energy vis a vis fossil
fuels, and in light of the global warming issues, is considered a
non-starter. That¹s hysteria. I think more and more people are recognizing
that these issues need to be examined with fresh eyes...that may not change
the conclusions of some or any people, but the debate certainly has merit in
my mind.
I¹m in the early stages of thinking through how I could shape a conference
to discuss the resurrection¹ if you will of nuclear energy, at least in
some states. I was talking about this very issue yesterday in DC with a
friend at Calvert Financial. The anti-nuclear left needs to be discussing
this, even if for no other reason to prevent the hard right from using
global warming as a wedge issue to drive ideological rifts.
Anyone on the list have ideas on who could discuss this last point...how the
right is using global warming issue to put the left back on its heels on
nuclear energy? It¹s a fascinating tactical turn, and many leftists are
playing into this game...yet at the same time, nuclear energy does need to
be reexamined. Fascinating paradox for sincere progressives...
Jon
On 5/22/06 5:53 AM, "Matten Dirk" <
Dirk.Matten@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> hi jon,
> interesting, i have very little knowledge about the us' attitude on nuclear
> power, so by 'hysterical' you mean that there are also strong forces of
> resistance?
>
> in europe the picture is rather multifaceted. i think france, spain and the
> other mediterranian countries are somewhat more fatalistic about this issue,
> mostly due to lack of alternatives - though also in these countries there is a
> sizeable resistance movement which is politically not irrelevant. Segolene
> Royale, who is running for president as a likely winner in france, has her
> roots in the green movement in france. at the other end of the sprectrum you
> have sweden and my native germany. sweden is actively decommissioning nuclear
> and so was germany, where the anit-nuclear movement in the 80s was the single
> issue out of which a whole party grew (Die Gruenen) who was in power for 7
> years now (Joschka Fischer is one of the founding fahters). i could not
> imagine that the debate on nuclear being reinvigourated there in the same way
> it now happens in the uk. nuclear power in germany was a big ideological rift
> and for many commentators the arena in which a country with a rather dark
> past has tried to finally come 'clean'. it is interesting that the most
> radical environmental sectarty of state, Klaus Toepfer (currently UNDP exec
> dir) was a conservative/christian democrate - so this issue is now fully
> mainstreamed.
> in between are the anglo-saxon countries, benelux and the accession countries
> in the east where mostly a pragmatic and utilitarian debate on the issue has
> taken place. but even here, nuclear was off the table as it seemed. the more
> surprising it is that blair puts it firmly back - which is somehow an
> indicator how much he has lost touch with the public mood, but also an
> indicator of what David intimated in his email - second rounds are coming in
> on a few issues.
>
> anyway, thats the picture from europe in shorthand. would be interesting to
> learn about your conference.
>
> best,
> dirk
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Professor Dirk Matten
> Chair in Business Ethics
> Director, Centre for Research into Sustainability (CRIS)
> School of Management, Royal Holloway
> University of London
> Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX
> England
>
> Email
dirk.matten@rhul.ac.uk <mailto:
dirk.matten@rhul.ac.uk>
> Phone +44 1784 414018
> Fax +44 1784 439854
>
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Management/cris/index.html
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Entine [mailto:
runjonrun@earthlink.net]
>> Sent: 22 May 2006 04:34
>> To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Matten Dirk
>> Subject: Re: Round two of climate science wars?
>>
>> Dirk:
>>
>> Do you believe the clear fact of climate change will in any way change the
>> way the debate may unfold vis a vis nuclear energy¹. There are obviously
>> some signs of that in the US. Europe (read: France) has obviously never been
>> as hysterical about nuclear energy as has the US. Is the rest of Europe, the
>> UK in particular, warming to nuke energy in the light of global warming?
>>
>> I¹m thinking of holding a conference on this issue, so I¹d value your
>> thoughts (and anyone else¹s in Europe or elsewhere).
>>
--
Jon Entine
American Enterprise Institute
http://www.jonentine.com
(513) 527-4385
cell: 319-8388
FAX: 527-4386