Group items tagged

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

The Tennessee Valley Authority continues its way on a troubling path of the unknown with nuclear power plants. Given all the potential ramifications of flaws at any nuclear power facility, the public has good reason to question the path taken by TVA. Among the most recent concerns about TVA operations are questions about the design for potential new nuclear reactors at the Bellefonte nuclear power site near Huntsville, Ala. TVA is seeking a license to build a plant based on a new design, the AP-1000 Westinghouse, but environmental groups say while the licensing process goes forward changes are being made to the design. Advertisement TVA insists the changes in the design are only peripheral to the basic plan. Design changes include changes to the pressurizer; changes in the seismic analysis involving rock and soil conditions; changes in instruments and a redesign of fuel racks. Advocates of the licensing process say the design changes at issue are only the kinds of items that can be carried easily on a parallel track with the application process. The basic design is said to be a simpler version of a nuclear reactor. The design is significant because if and when it is approved for Bellefonte, it streamlines the process for other plant sites that might want to build on a Bellefonte model.

"he shareholders of FPL Group, Inc. voted today to change the name of the company to NextEra Energy, Inc. The company announced the proposed name change on March 19, 2010. During the company's annual meeting today, the proposal was approved by more than 95 percent of the shareholders who cast a vote. Following the shareholder vote, the name of the company was formally changed from FPL Group, Inc. to NextEra Energy, Inc. The change is intended to better reflect the company's scale as one of the largest and cleanest energy providers in the country, its diverse scope of operations across 28 states and Canada, and its forward-thinking, innovative approach to providing energy-related solutions for customers. "

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

Nuclear power plants must provide updated estimates of how long it would take to evacuate nearby communities in an emergency under a new rule approved Tuesday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tweet 1 person Tweeted this ShareThis Plant operators would have to update their evacuation estimates after every 10-year census, or when changes in population would increase the estimated time by at least 30 minutes. The requirement was among several changes regulators approved regarding emergency preparedness. The changes came as the commission considered sweeping safety changes for the U.S. nuclear industry in response to the nuclear crisis in Japan.

With the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy initiative back on track after the recent trust vote in Parliament, government's key negotiator on Climate Change Shyam Saran on Saturday pinned hope that "clean energy" would help tackle climate change threats. Speaking at a seminar on "Climate change: Will India's Growth story confront new constraints?" he said, "We may look forward to a major expansion in nuclear power generation in the period upto 2030-31," to meet growing energy needs.

Calling climate change one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the human race, some former opponents of nuclear power have recently become its advocates, if cautious advocates. Our purpose here is not to debate climate change, but rather "Is nuclear power essential to addressing climate change and energy independence?"

Big firms drop support for US climate bill * BP America, Caterpillar and Conoco end support * Opponents claim climate law is dead in the water Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agenda as three firms drop out of a coalition that had been pressing for climate change laws. Photograph: Brian Kersey/Getty Images Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations - including BP America - dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation. The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law. They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan."

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

Now that more people are attuned to the ticking clock of climate change, there is no shortage of theories for how the next act will play out. Though scientists, activists and theorists have been wildly off the mark so far, they continue to guess at what will be the solutions - and pitfalls - for getting the planet back on track. Stewart Brand first made his mark not by imagining the future, but by making it happen. His Whole Earth Catalog of 1968 (published through the early 1970s), changed publishing, kick-started the computer revolution, the green movement, organic farming and the whole concept of living off the grid.

Now that more people are attuned to the ticking clock of climate change, there is no shortage of theories for how the next act will play out. Though scientists, activists and theorists have been wildly off the mark so far, they continue to guess at what will be the solutions - and pitfalls - for getting the planet back on track. Stewart Brand first made his mark not by imagining the future, but by making it happen. His Whole Earth Catalog of 1968 (published through the early 1970s), changed publishing, kick-started the computer revolution, the green movement, organic farming and the whole concept of living off the grid.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.

The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel turns its attention to the scandal in Germany surrounding the participation of RWE in the construction of NPP Belene. Jurgen Grosmann, the President and CEO of RWE, has received an unusual letter of protest from Bulgarian MPs, which showed the negative effect from the construction of the nuclear power plant on the tourism and agriculture in the region. The reason behind this letter was an answer to the plans of Grosmann to invest EUR 1.5 billion in the construction of NPP Belene. Der Tagesspiegel explains that some of the members of the supervisory board of the German company have started to have doubts about the investment following a protest action of an environmental organization. Grosmann said that the project could not be renegotiated, which made the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of RWE - Thomas Fischer, try to change the interior regulations of the company. The planned changes would allow the supervisory board to take part in the approval of new investment projects. If such changes are made, there would be a majority, which would vote against the participation of RWE in the NPP Belene project.

A committee of the Vermont Legislature is formally objecting to changes in rules by the Health Department that allow the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to release more radiation into the environment. Members of the legislature's administration rules committee say they're not objecting to the science behind the change. Rather, they are objecting to the Health Department's refusal to put the changes before the committee under the administrative procedures act.

Panel questions methods on Yankee radiation standards MONTPELIER - The public was short-changed last year when the Department of Health changed the way it calculated the radiation coming from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and didn't hold public hearings on the issue, members of a legislative panel said Wednesday. Last year, the Department of Health started using a "conversion factor" of 0.6 on any measured radiation coming from the plant, noting that science showed that not all radiation is absorbed by the human body. The change has made it easier for Vermont Yankee to meet the state's radiation emission limits, which are the strictest in the country.

Mechanical problems at Vermont Yankee can be fixed, said a member of the public oversight panel tasked with reviewing a reliability assessment of the power plant in Vernon. "But we have concerns that the global and cultural problems -- not mechanical -- are a real enormous nut to crack," said Arnie Gundersen. "Issues with management are cultural, hard to change and hard to measure that they have been changed." Entergy, which owns and operates Yankee, simply does not spend enough money or invest enough time to assure the power plant is maintained, said Gundersen. He called Entergy "penny wise and pound foolish." It's a corporate attitude that needs to be changed, said Gundersen.

Welcome, to this 21st Regulatory Information Conference. There are a few thousand people here, so as you can imagine, this is the biggest event we sponsor every year. I want to begin, therefore, by thanking all the staff for their enormous hard work in putting this together. The NRC has been hosting the RIC for 21 years, and each year it seems to get bigger, which means of course, that it is a bit more challenging to plan and organize. But the staff always seems to rise to the occasion and make sure everything goes smoothly. Speaking of the NRC staff, many of you know that the agency has undergone significant changes in our senior leadership in the past year. Luis Reyes, our former EDO, is now Regional Administrator in Atlanta. He wanted to retire, but we twisted his arm to stay. And Bill Borchardt moved up from the Office of New Reactors to become the new EDO. Several other senior positions also changed. But despite those changes, there has been very good continuity, because the agency has benefitted from an excellent depth of talent.