Green Groups Reject Nuke
Power as Answer to Global Warming
June 17, 2005 — By Global Resource Action Center for the Environment
WASHINGTON, D.C. — GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment)
today joined nearly 300 international, national, regional and local
environmental, consumer, and clean energy groups to reject recent claims that
nuclear power is a viable solution to global warming.
With votes Congress discussing a new energy bill this, GRACE joined several of
the groups in calling for Congress to reject legislation that would subsidize
nuclear power as part of a plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas.
"Embracing nuclear power as a remedy to global warming is like taking up
heroine to avoid an addiction to crack," said GRACE President Alice Slater.
"Proponents of nuclear power conveniently ignore the huge amount of
greenhouse gas emissions that come from mining the uranium needed to fuel the
reactor, building and powering the enrichment facilities needed to turn it into
fuel, constructing the massive power plants that burn this radioactive material,
and storing and securing for hundreds of thousands of years the toxic waste
produced."
The statement against nuclear power comes in response to recent efforts by the
nuclear energy industry to revive the moribund sector as a means to temper
climate change. But the groups today dispelled the argument that nuclear power
is a viable solution to global warming, citing a recent MIT study that found
that expanding nuclear power to have any significant effect on climate change
would require building at least 1,000 new reactors. And even if the facilities
could be built, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that there are only
enough uranium reserves available to fuel that many reactors for 4 decades,
after which the U.S. would face yet an even greater energy crisis. And even if
an inexhaustible supply of uranium could be found, hundreds of new plants would
generate so much waste as to require the construction of a new Yucca
Mountain-sized waste site every 4 or 5 years.
In a torrent of recent media coverage and advertising, the nuclear industry has
seized upon the climate change debate to encourage the unprecedented expansion
of an energy production method long viewed as uneconomical and unsafe,
especially after the Chernobyl disaster abroad and the Three Mile Island
accident in Pennsylvania.
"Don't believe the hype," Slater said. "There remain several
insurmountable hurdles to expanding nuclear energy in the amounts necessary to
make a dent in global warming pollution. Even if all the technical obstacles
could be overcome, there would still be the danger of proliferation. It is
inconceivable that, at a time when the world shudders at the prospect of rogue
states developing nuclear weapons capabilities, our elected officials are
considering increasing by the thousands the number of sites that store potential
weapons-grade material," she said.
The pending Senate energy bill is likely to include many nuclear-friendly
provisions designed to encourage energy companies to build new reactors.
Already, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of energy
legislation in April, including $6.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies and tax
breaks, as well as other incentives. The Senate version of the energy bill
includes $4.3 billion in subsidies; the tax provisions, which are likely to
include billions in tax breaks for the nuclear industry, have not been completed
yet.
In the statement released today, the groups outlined five key reasons why
nuclear energy should be rejected as a solution to global warming, stating that
nuclear energy is unnecessary, too expensive, too dangerous, too polluting and
would exacerbate the problems posed by the technology.
"We can meet our future electricity needs and reduce global warming
pollution without increasing our reliance on nuclear energy," the groups
wrote, noting that 19 states have passed renewable electricity standards
requiring an increasing percentage of energy to be generated by renewable energy
sources, and that several studies have shown that clean energy solutions can
dramatically reduce global warming pollution.
"Using clean energy, we can reduce seven times the greenhouse gas emissions
for the same price as a new generation of nuclear power plants," said David
Hamilton, Director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program.
"Americans should resist the attempt by the nuclear industry to force a
nuclear energy revival on us."
"It is ironic that the same folks who, until recently, denied that global
warming even exists now want Americans to give them billions of dollars to solve
the problem," noted Slater. "If even a fraction of the public dollars
now being sought to revive the nuclear industry was devoted to harnessing the
clean, inexhaustible energy form the sun, the wind, and the tides, we could
solve our global warming problems in a matter of years. And no terrorist has
ever attacked a windmill!"
To read the full statement, go to:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/GroupNuclearStmt.pdf
or
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nuclearglobalwarmingstatement6162005
.pdf
For more information on the dangers of nuclear power, visit:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/fatalflaws
or
http://www.gracelinks.org/nuke
CONTACT:
Chris Cooper, Media Relations Director
212-726-9161
ccooper@gracelinks.org