F Y I - WHAT'S HAPPENING?
The Nuclear Genie
Nuclear Weapons
In 1970, the United States and 188 other countries signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In it the nuclear countries promised good-faith negotiations toward reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. They promised not to transfer such material to non-nuclear states, while non-nuclear Parties to the Treaty promised not to receive any such transfer. Nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and help giving and getting it were OK.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the top priority of peace activists was to secure a nuclear freeze. In 1982, thousands of people assembled in New York City calling for a freeze in the arms race. Several areas of the world declared themselves to be “nuclear-free zones.” Since the 1980s, however, public enthusiasm has withered away, though in 2005 an ABC poll found that two-thirds of Americans believed the US should not have nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty called for conferences every five years among the Parties to the Treaty. At each conference until 2005, the US reasserted its commitment to its Treaty obligations but took no negotiations toward reduction. In 2000, the US endorsed 13 specific steps to be taken but these steps were then ignored. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration also rejected the treaty to ban nuclear tests that the Clinton administration had negotiated in 1996. That treaty had been ratified by 121 nations but never ratified by the US Senate.
At the 2005 conference, the US no longer expressed US commitment to the Treaty. In fact, an agenda for the conference could not even be agreed on. In the meantime, the Bush Administration had been updating its nuclear warheads and had unsuccessfully sought funding for a new kind of nuclear weapon. It now has also offered help to non-Member India in building its nuclear energy and weapons capability – counter to US treaty obligations. So the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is unraveling.
Worse, the Administration, in 2002, proclaimed a new US National Security Strategy in which nuclear weapons are no longer only for deterrence but now are declared to be for use in defense of US control anywhere in the world. Most Americans are unaware of this new declaration of intent – or of the fact that of our 8,000 active or operational US warheads, 2,000 are still on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on a 15-minute warning.
Meanwhile, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea have become nuclear nations, not under the restraints of any treaty. Iran is suspected of developing nuclear weapons, and the United States is modernizing old weapons, planning to resume testing, and asserting that our policy is now to expand our capability and actually feel free to use nuclear weapons if we think it is necessary to maintain our control anywhere in the world.
A major nuclear exchange would end life on this planet. The presence of so many nuclear weapons among mistrustful nation states is a recipe for disaster. The new US National Security Strategy is immoral, illegal, and terribly dangerous.
The recently released report by the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Hans Blix holds that it’s not just rogue states that should not have nuclear weapons: these weapons are dangerous in anyone’s hands, including ours. The best way to end their threat is to eliminate them worldwide.
The ill-fated Titanic has been seen as a metaphor for our present situation. Like the Titanic on its maiden voyage, steaming boldly ahead, with everyone confident that the ship was unsinkable, the US is ignoring the threat of the many “icebergs” of nuclear weapons, armed and ready to fire, in many parts of the world. Some we know about, some we don’t, but all have the potential to lead to apocalypse.
What can we
do?
Till now, our leaders have realized that the only purpose in having a nuclear arsenal was as a deterrent. Using them was not an option because it would be suicidal. We need to elect leaders who are aware of the foolhardiness of dependence on nuclear weapons and the utter stupidity of ever using them. With leaders who see the danger of nuclear weapons, the US could start to lead the nuclear nations toward the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons that we promised in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
We can begin by proclaiming our new intention and announcing that we are eliminating part of our arsenal and will eliminate more if other nuclear nations reciprocate proportionately. This would have to mean real elimination, of course, not just removing weapons from hair-trigger alert status while retaining their capability. In addition, we would need to invite open international inspections and insist that others do so too. And we would need to renounce our present National Security Strategy of threatened use of nuclear weapons.
For a change of direction like this, we will need a supportive citizenry, educated again to the suicidal threat that nuclear weapons are posing. We have work to do!
Nuclear Energy
Fifty years ago, when nuclear weapons became a reality, there was much enthusiasm for “atoms for peace.” Nuclear power was expected to be cheap and safe. Many nuclear reactors were built in the 1970s, all with generous government subsidies.
No nuclear plants have been built in the US in the last 30 years. The Shearon Harris plant was the only one to be completed of the eleven begun in North Carolina. It cost twelve times as much as budgeted, and its record has Included (1) two system failures, (2) a near-worst record of fire violations, and (3) two series of security breaches in which unauthorized workers were allowed in protected areas. A large and increasing stockpile of high-level nuclear waste is stored there, just outside the reactor.
Safety violations and design flaws at Shearon Harris and elsewhere tell us that nuclear plants are not as safe as advertised. And since 9/11, the nuclear plants have been sitting ducks for sabotage or terrorist attack.
Nuclear waste is a mounting, still unsolved problem. We haven’t figured out any way to make it safe, and it will be lethal for half a million years. Meanwhile, it’s being stored temporarily at the nuclear plants, where too many spent fuel rods are being crowded into containers of water that must be kept cool to prevent fire. No one sees this as an adequate long-term solution. Yucca Flats has been prepared for permanent storage but now is recognized as unsuitable.
Today we are in a bind. Our dependence on foreign oil has been significant in leading us into a military quagmire in Iraq and we don’t have enough oil in the US to meet our needs. Meanwhile, climate change from the pollution caused by our use of fossil fuels is accelerating dangerously. It is a threat to our planetary life-support system that will trump all our other problems if we don’t deal with it immediately. It is clear that we have to stop depending on fossil fuels.
New nuclear plants are being urged as a solution for meeting our energy needs and dealing with global warming. This is a terrible idea for several reasons.
First is the unsolved problem of nuclear waste. Do we have any right to depend on a technology that produces large quantities of such dangerous and long-lasting poison?
Second is the continuing problem of safety – the likelihood of accidents or a terrorist attack. Third, nuclear energy would be no help for fuel for our cars. It is useful only for providing electricity and there are safer ways to do that.
In addition, it would take ten years to build new nuclear plants, during which time building them would take a lot of fossil fuel energy, adding to global warming, which we can’t afford to do. So though nuclear energy doesn’t produce the emissions that come from cars, the building of new nuclear plants would itself add to global warming, and the new plants would be at least 10 years away.
Finally, mining and preparation of uranium for a nuclear reactor ruins the environment and is dangerous to the workers who produce it.
And now, a brand new reason for not building new nuclear plants has recently been discovered in Europe, In France and Germany, both of which are dependent on nuclear energy, the hotter summers have resulted in the need to release more water from nuclear plants into nearby rivers. Unfortunately, the water in the rivers was already warmer than usual from global warming, and the added hot water from the nuclear plants has killed fish and other flora and fauna. In both countries, the power from the nuclear reactors has had to be reduced to stop these deaths. As a result, there is now serious question about the wisdom of continuing to depend on nuclear energy. Nuclear scientists in both Germany and France have urged their governments to invest massively in alternative fuels and get rid of nuclear as soon as possible.
No private investors in the US are interested in new nuclear plants. New nuclear plants would have to be built with large government subsidies and protected by government insurance – all paid for by us taxpayers. It’s the nuclear industry that is urging new nuclear plants. The public needs to become concerned and expressive of its feelings.
At present, the US gets about 20% of its energy from nuclear plants. But the present plants are aging and must soon be decommissioned – an expensive process. Who will pay for that? The taxpayers, of course. Do we want to have that expense again forty years from now plus the added cost of more new reactors?
Fortunately, renewable energies are ready. Gas can be produced from crops or we could go back to electric cars, which were killed by the car companies some years back but could be made again. Electricity is already being used in hybrid cars. Other renewable sources of energy include solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass, and photovoltaics. Studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Synapse Energy Economics all conclude that there are no technical or economic barriers to getting the energy we need from renewable sources.
Shifting to new energy sources will also create many new jobs. Other countries are way ahead of us. In 2004, Germany added 5,000 solar jobs. As mentioned above, its scientists are urging a 100% transition to efficient, renewable energy. In Denmark, 20% of its electricity now comes from wind. Globally, electricity generation from wind increased by 24% to 59,000 megawatts. Worldwide, by the end of 2004, there was more installed capacity for alternative energies than for nuclear. Sweden is leading on alternative auto fuel.
At present, half of the energy we create and pay for is wasted through inefficient practices and outdated technology. Both coal and nuclear plants send two-thirds of their fuel energy into the air as waste and heat. Tremendous energy savings can be made through conservation and greater efficiency. Weatherization, modern lighting, more efficient appliances, constructing energy-smart buildings and retrofitting existing ones all save money and energy.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Energy Blueprint,
“America can ‘develop a balanced portfolio of clean energy solutions that will stop wasting energy … develop diverse, domestic energy supplies … save consumers $440 billion by 2020 … provide security and jobs … and restore international good will by reducing CO² emissions.’”
Several states are ahead of the federal government in addressing
global warming. Twenty-one
states now mandate that utilities phase in renewable power generation.
California is setting a new standard for fuel efficiency and low emissions
that northeastern states are also adopting. For example, some states will
require automakers to produce more efficient cars.
Unfortunate- ly, instead of providing subsidies to hasten our
transition to the new energies, the Bush Administration’s 2006 budget
cut funds for renewables.
It’s our emissions of greenhouse gases, largely carbon dioxide, that have caused global warming. We have to reduce these gases if we want to survive on a benevolent planet. But only education and citizen pressure and participation can make this happen.
1/4/07
Sources:
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Report, released at UN headquarters June 1, 2006.
Winning the Oil Endgame, 2004. Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, NC WARN – North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network, www.ncwarn.org
Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, Lester R Brown, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006
Solar Electric Power Association – Mike Niklas,
Innovative Design, Raleigh, NC, 919-832-6303
Stockholm Environmental Institute, Box 2142, Suite 103, 14 Stockholm, Sweden
