Greta Thunberg on nuclear power
"Personally I am against nuclear power, but according to the IPCC [the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change], it can be a small part of a very big new carbon free energy solution, especially in countries and areas that lack the possibility of a full scale renewable energy supply - even though it's extremely dangerous, expensive and time consuming. But let’s leave that debate until we start looking at the full picture." ---Greta Thunberg, founder, Youth Climate Strike
Greta's nuanced statement accurately reflects what te IPCC report says. (Of course, it's a constant battle within the UN system against the nuclear power lobby, which has its clutches deeply into the IAEA, UNSCEAR, WHO, etc.!)
Yes, nuclear power IS dirty, dangerous, and expensive, she's right about that! See our pamphlet by that title:
Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Verdict is in on Nuclear Power
(Ralph Nader says "Just recently, a well-desinged and documented pamphlet by Beyond Nuclear summarizes the case against nuclear power as 'Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty.' The clear, precise detail and documentation makes for expeditious education of your friends, neighbors and co-workers.")
But nuclear power also risks nuclear weapons proliferation, as we're now seeing in Saudi Arabia! That's a part of the "dangerous" aspect!
Studies show that a "mere" 100 Nagasaki bombs, "exchanged" -- as between India and Pakistan -- could cause a "Nuclear Winter," resulting in 2 billion (with a B!) famine deaths:
https://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html
Climate catastrophe, in the other direction -- not global warming, but nuclear winter.
So this risk alone makes nuclear power a non-starter as a "climate solution."
But as Greta Thunberg put it above, nuclear power is "extremely dangerous, expensive and time consuming."
It would take too long, and cost too much, to put it mildly. It would not solve the climate problem. In fact, it would be a potentially fatal wrong turn, depending on how much money and time is wasted, while neglecting genuine climate solutions like renewables and efficiency.
And nuclear power has a long list of its own dangers, its own insurmountable risks -- weapons proliferation; potential large-scale accidents; the unsolved radioactive waste dilemma. These were the arguments laid out in Dr. Brice Smith of IEER's "Insurmountable Risks" in 2006.
To the list could be added: "routine" radiation releases; nuclear's own environmental injustice; nuclear's own carbon releases (radioactive waste management forevermore involves large-scale fossil fuel combustion, for one thing!); the list goes on...
As Dr. Arjun Makhijani of IEER showed clearly in 2007, our energy can be both carbon-free AND NUCEAR-FREE -- avoiding climate catastrophe, while also avoiding radioactive catastrophe. Arjun Makhijani won a Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) "Visionary Leadership Award" in November 2018.
Both of these IEER books are available at its website, along with many others!
As Dr. Helen Caldicott wrote in 2004, "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer"!
Helen Caldicott -- Beyond Nuclear's founding president -- will be honored with a prestigious PSR "Lifetime Achievement Award" in Washington, D.C. in November 2019.
September 26, 2019