ALERT!
September 1, 2000

For more info, contact:
Cindy Folkers, NIRS 301-270-6477 20

The nuclear power industry is trying to gain access to yet another subsidy and the U.S. is poised to support them in upcoming international negotiations. By falsely claiming that nuclear power is needed to address global climate change, the industry hopes to construct and operate new reactors all over the world. The industry wants to use a pollution trading credit scheme in the current Kyoto climate change agreement to offset nuclear energy's oppressive construction costs. The Clinton/Gore administration is planning to support use of pollution credits to nuclear energy based on the same formula used to give renewable energy credits. This policy would give nuclear energy status equal to sustainable energy under the energy credit plan in the Kyoto agreement.

CALL or EMAIL officials below. Demand the Clinton/Gore administration adopt the following positions:

• NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ARE.
• ANY FURTHER SUBSIDY TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WILL THWART SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND ULTIMATELY HURT OUR EFForTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
• NUCLEAR POWER MUST BE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) OF THE KYOTO AGREEMENT AND GIVEN NO CREDITS

ALSO, TELL THE CLINTON/GorE ADMINISTRATION MANY "DEVELOPING" NATIONS DON'T WANT NUCLEAR POWER AND THEIR CITIZENS DO WANT A VOICE

We must not spread nuclear terror by allowing financially and/or politically fragile nations to be burdened with nuclear waste, pollution and weapons proliferation risk as many countries (including the US) currently are. All nations deserve better. We MUST reduce greenhouse gases domestically, not get false "credit" for reductions by selling anynation dirty nuclear reactors. The U.S. should learn from our own horrible mistakes with nuclear energy and not allow the nuclear industry to abuse other nations with their failed technology—no nuclear power reactor order has been placed in the U.S. since 1973. We have yet to find a way to safely store the first cupfull of radioactive waste produced in the U.S. on April 24, 1942.

We must tell the Clinton/Gore administration that it is unacceptable to support the nuclear industry in trying to get more undeserved investment and legitimacy, even while ratepayers in the United States are bailing out nuclear reactors to the tune of $300 billion dollars. A boost to the nuclear industry could also mean more nuclear reactors will be built in the US, after many years of stagnation and rate-payer robbery.

Contact the following U.S. officials before and during climate change meeting in Lyon which commences on September 4. Further alerts and !QU!s will be coming.

Mr. David Gardiner, Executive Director, White House Climate Change Task Force, Phone: 202-395-2343, Fax: 202-395-2311; email: David_Gardiner@ceq.eop.gov

Mr. Frank Loy; Under Secretary for Global Affairs; Phone: 202-647-8877; Fax: 202-647-0753 email: mitchelllm@state.gov

Mr. Roger Ballentine; Deputy Assistant to the President on Environmental Issues; Phone: 202-456-1782; Fax 202-456-1736; email: rballentine@who.eop.gov

BACKGROUND

Through the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement created to address climate change, the nuclear industry hopes to get credit (to offset construction costs) for something it cannot deliver: clean, environmentally friendly, non-polluting, energy production.

Language in the Kyoto Protocol will allow developed nations to build power plants in other countries and get a pollution credit if the new plant leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, the country receiving the credit does not have to reduce their own greenhouse gas production. This concept is called the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM. In essence, it is a worldwide pollution trading credits scheme. The United States (Three Mile Island), Russia (Chernobyl), and Japan (Tokaimura) are among the nations eligible for CDM credits. Each of these countries has a poor nuclear technology record and a history of sacrificing democratic principles, such as public participation, for nuclear industry profit.

Decisions on policies and enforcement for the Kyoto agreement happen at annual meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Climate Change Convention. This year is the sixth meeting (COP 6). It will be held in The Hague, Netherlands from November 13-24, 2000. Decisions on the CDM may be made, however, at an interim meeting occurring September 4-15 in Lyon, France. In fact, the nuclear industry is pushing hard to give nuclear power CDM credits during LYON and is relying on the US, China and Japan to push the industry position during the negotiations.

THE U.S. MUST APPROVE LANGUAGE WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE INCLUSION OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE CDM.

One of the CDM's primary objectives is to help developing countries achieve sustainable development by subsidizing previously unsubsidized industries. Allowing nuclear energy to receive pollution trading credits through the CDM would in effect reduce the cost of nuclear reactor construction, thereby giving nuclear power another huge, undeserved subsidy, while keeping money from sounder, proven investments like energy efficiency. Every dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in CO2 emissions reduction than that same dollar invested in nuclear power. Energy efficiency alone could account for 60% of the emissions reduction necessary in the U.S. to meet the Kyoto protocol.

Further investment in nuclear would also keep funds away from renewable energy development. This trade-off is exactly what has happened in the U.S. over the past 50 years. When comparing U.S. government subsidies for nuclear, solar, and wind, the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of $150 billion in investments since 1947 according to Renewable Energy Policy Project; that's $145 billion for nuclear reactors and $5 billion for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies have cost the average household a total amount of $1,411 [1998 dollars] compared to $11 for wind. The more money we spend on nuclear power, the less greenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive, while we hurt sustainable technology investment.

The U.S. claims it does not want to limit "developing" nations to certain technologies; that developing nations should decide for themselves which technologies are sustainable and which are not. While this seems to be a reasonable position on its face, implementation of the Kyoto agreement allows for very little equitable public participation. Therefore, a mechanism for ensuring that the citizens of a nation really want a certain technology does not exist. Additionally, many smaller developing nations fear nuclear power CDM credits would favor high-growth nuclear projects in developing countries over smaller, sustainable projects in non-nuclear developing nations. As an Indonesia delegate commented: "I think it is simple colonialism to push nuclear power onto developing countries, leaving them with all the burdens that come with it". Indian NGOs have worded a letter to the U.S., Japan, and Canada stating, "[T]he undersigned Indian social and political organizations , human rights organizations, NGOs, women's rights organizations, and trade unions are writing to urge you to exclude nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol". Member nations of AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) oppose giving nuclear reactors credit for greenhouse gas reduction, asking that CDM projects "Not support the use of nuclear power". Countries of AOSIS do not support the use of nuclear power to address global climate change even though their island nations stand to lose the most from sea level rise.

Each current 1000-megawatt reactor produces 40 bombs worth of plutonium per year and atomic waste which will be dangerous for many thousands of years, with no proven storage technology able to last for the entire hazardous life of these radioactive wastes, natural and man-made barriers included.

Finally, nuclear reactors threaten our health. As a matter of normal operation, reactors release radioactive substances to the air and water. Many human population studies demonstrate that additional, low, constant levels of radiation can cause cancer and genetic mutations in this and future generations. Subjects of these studies, often nuclear facility workers and communities, suffer higher rates of diseases than non-nuclear communities, even with apparent normal operation of these facilities.

For more information, Contact: Cindy Folkers, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, 202-328-0002, cindyf@nirs.org. 9/1/00

< Return to Previous Page