| |
|
Today, the next round of negotiations on the Climate Change Convention
begins in The Hague in The Netherlands [1]. One of the main items on the
agenda is the controversial issue of 'Carbon Trading'. This is where countries
(or indeed companies within countries) will be able to buy and sell 'credits'
in order to help lower the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
and so tackle the problem of global warming and climate change.
There are many problems with carbon trading but one of the main issues is the way in which it could be used to encourage the export of nuclear technology instead of cleaner energy technologies such as wind, solar, biomass (e.g. woodchips) and small-scale hydro-power. Through carbon trading [2], nuclear technologies could be exported to the former Eastern bloc countries (which already have considerable trouble in safely maintaining their current nuclear power plants) or to developing countries (many of which have low standards of environmental regulation and little experience with nuclear technologies).
This leads to three main problems:
* Nuclear weapons. Nuclear power stations can be (and very often are) used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. This could lead to further proliferation of nuclear weapons across the world. As we have seen in Russia, weapons-grade plutonium can and does 'disappear'. It could find its way to terrorist groups.
* Nuclear waste. Nuclear power stations produce large amounts of high level and intermediate level radioactive waste. Even countries like the UK and the USA are finding it very difficult to safely deal with their waste. Will developing countries fair any better?
* Nuclear safety. There is always a risk of an accident at nuclear power stations, which could lead to major leaks of radioactive waste into the local environment, causing much illness and death.
Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) [3] are calling for nuclear power technologies to be explicitly excluded from Carbon Trading to help avoid to these three major problems.
Dr Stuart Parkinson of SGR said: "It is not acceptable to use carbon
trading to fund the export of nuclear power due to the risks of the spread
of nuclear weapons, increase in radioactive waste and problems in the safety
of nuclear reactors. Carbon trading instead should be used to fund cleaner
technologies such as wind and solar, and improvements in energy-efficiency".
Notes
[1] This round of negotiations is known as 'COP-6', the 6th Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UN FCCC). The UN FCCC was agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
in
1992 with the aim of preventing 'dangerous anthropogenic (human caused)
interference with the climate system.' Following this, in 1997, the Kyoto
Protocol was agreed, setting limits to the emissions of greenhouse gases
(the main cause of climate change). As part of the Kyoto Protocol, a number
of 'Carbon Trading' mechanisms (collectively known as the Kyoto Mechanisms)
were agreed. One of the aims of COP-6 is to finalise rules on these
mechanisms.
[2] The two trading mechanisms which could allow the export of nuclear
technologies are 'joint implementation' (JI) and the 'clean development
mechanism' (CDM). JI allows export to the former Eastern bloc countries
(Eastern Europe and much of the former Soviet Union), whilst the CDM allows
export to developing countries. By definition the CDM should 'contribute
to
sustainable development' in the recipient country - SGR believes that
nuclear power contravenes this definition.
[3] Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) is an independent UK organisation of scientists committed to the ethical use of science and technology. See also SGR's position statement on the Kyoto Mechanisms
|
|
Send correspondence about the web-site to This page last modified: 2nd October 2003 |
