Biden is betting big on nuclear energy. But what happens if the next Hurricane Ian strikes Turkey Point?

The situation at Turkey Point highlights the potential risks with Biden’s energy strategy as the nation’s nuclear facilities age and extreme weather grows worse.

Biden is betting big on nuclear energy. But what happens if the next Hurricane Ian strikes Turkey Point?

Opinion | Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense - The New York Times

The case for next-gen nuclear is getting harder to make as the price of solar, wind, and batteries plummets. In this well-reasoned op-ed by @fmanjoo, @mzjacobson describes this as an "opportunity cost" we cannot afford in the face of a climate crisis. https://t.co/QoHbp2nHa9

— Jay Turner (@_jay_turner) September 16, 2022

Opinion | Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense - The New York Times

The Insanity of Expanding Nuclear Energy - Emagazine.com

Former nuclear regulatory top dogs from the United States, France, Germany and Great Britain issued a joint statement in January strenuously opposing any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change. Why? There is not a single good reason to build new nuclear plants. Here are ten solid reasons not to…

The Insanity of Expanding Nuclear Energy - Emagazine.com

NIRS Statement in Response to the Inflation Reduction Act: Climate Compromises and Sacrifices Are Not Justifiable

  On Friday, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) passed the House and is headed to President Biden’s desk to be signed into law. This bill could have been our best – and maybe our only – chance to make real progress on fighting climate change and creating a just environmental and economic future. It should've been a major success for climate policy. 

It is a deep disappointment that the IRA is not truly a climate bill and is certain to harm the very communities that most need action on climate. With the IRA, our elected leaders have chosen to side with dirty energy industries, their financiers and investors, corporate media, and political opportunists to prop up the dirty energy status quo with hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, financing, and devil’s bargains. 

NIRS joins the many frontline and BIPOC-led organizations that have pointed out they cannot support the bill. The compromise between climate action and climate destruction in the IRA is not one we can accept. NIRS urges Congress and the White House to go back and develop a policy that truly addresses climate change and environmental injustice – including restoration and repair of the harms caused by fossil fuels and nuclear energy. 

We refuse to accept that frontline communities must be sacrificed yet again for nuclear, fossil, and other dirty energy interests. We stand in solidarity with the frontline communities and we will not stop fighting for a just, equitable, and sustainable future. 

Read our full statement on the IRA here.

Four Senior Nuclear Officials Say Nuclear Is Not A Climate Solution - Below 2C

Nuclear is not a strategy that will help with the climate crisis. Renewables are a better alternative to nuclear small modular reactors for two main reasons: cost and speed of deployment. While the costs of renewables are plummeting, nuclear costs have steadily been on the rise. And during a climate emergency and Canada’s dash to a 40-45% emissions reduction by 2030, renewables can be set up much faster and more reliably.

Four Senior Nuclear Officials Say Nuclear Is Not A Climate Solution - Below 2C

Opinion: The real cost of nuclear energy for humans and the planet | Opinion | DW | 21.01.2022

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW's Jeannette Cwienk.

Opinion: The real cost of nuclear energy for humans and the planet | Opinion | DW | 21.01.2022 

Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free ECU 662 Michel Lee - YouTube

Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free ECU 662 Michel Lee - YouTube:

Enviro Close-Up #662 -- Nuclear Power Is Not Carbon-Free Michel Lee, an attorney and senior analyst for Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), shatters the current pitch of the nuclear industry that nuclear power is carbon-free. “It’s flat-out false,” says Lee. The nuclear fuel cycle—which includes mining, milling and enrichment of uranium—is carbon intensive, she notes. And nuclear plants emit Carbon-14, a radioactive form of carbon with a half-life of 5,700 years. Nuclear power “is an extremely ineffective way to deal with climate change,” says Lee. She says media accepting it as carbon-free and an answer to climate change are doing “reporting of press releases.” Further, she tells of how the nuclear industry “would shrivel up and die without subsidies” from government.” She speaks of environmental justice and how nuclear power “has left an astonishingly horrific legacy on uranium-mining communities, in the United States mostly Native American communities,” and minority communities are being “targeted” for nuclear waste. She states: “Nuclear is particularly poorly suited to democracy.”

More Nuclear Energy Is Not The Solution To Our Climate Crisis

Faced with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report, some environmental leaders are all too ready to toss a lifeline to aging, uneconomic nuclear power plants. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), long venerated as America’s most rigorous nuclear watchdog group, joined this chorus in early November.

The UCS report, “The Nuclear Dilemma,” proposes that we single out “safe” but financially ailing nuclear plants and subsidize their operations, so that they might remain open — thus avoiding additional carbon emissions from coal or natural gas plants that might replace them. America gets about 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, but only 17 of the 99 reactors that generate this power are unprofitable, according to UCS. Those reactors account for just 3 percent of overall U.S. power generation, though UCS says the share of unprofitable nuclear plants could grow in future years if the price of natural gas drops or the costs of maintaining older nuclear facilities rise.

What do we gain by breathing some extra life into these plants? Proponents say “zero-carbon emissions.” That’s if we choose to ignore the emissions associated with mining and processing uranium, building nuclear power stations, managing nuclear waste, and — on those rare but horrific occasions — dealing with the consequences of a major nuclear disaster.

Bailing out old, financially shaky nuclear plants is a short-sighted response to a huge challenge that requires much bigger, much more transformative thinking. Instead, we ought to invest big in our leading zero-carbon alternatives — solar and wind — which offer far cheaper electricity and, unlike nuclear, have life-cycle costs that have steadily dropped over the past several years…

more: More Nuclear Energy Is Not The Solution To Our Climate Crisis

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? - Scientific American Blog Network

That’s what some are advocating, but the arguments in favor of doing so are flawed

Last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put out a reportentitled The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions that calls for offering subsidies to unprofitable nuclear power plants. Not surprisingly, it has been widely welcomed by nuclear advocates, who interpret the report as essentially saying “yes to nuclear power” in order to reduce carbon emissions.

But that interpretation misses the many important but less prominent insights in the UCS report… read more

Conclusion: "All these factors undermine the report’s central assumption that nuclear plants will be replaced by fossil fueled plants. To be fair, the UCS report does call for periodically assessing whether continued support is necessary and cost effective. But such support might already not be cost effective. All told, the economic basis for subsidies is uncertain at best; more likely, it is flawed. Either way, it may be best to get onward with the transition from fossil fuels and nuclear power to renewables."

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? - Scientific American Blog Network

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE ACTION

When nuclear power started to develop into an ever more important source of electric energy during the second half of the twentieth century, there grew widespread optimism regarding the potential of this seemingly unlimited, clean and, in the long run, economic resource. The unresolved problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste—which degrades very slowly, with a half-life of up to 15.7 million years—existed from the beginning but was widely ignored. Instead, much hope was placed in finding a solution to this problem—a solution that, up to this date, still does not exist.

Those who were skeptical of nuclear power were proven right by the accidents of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. The latter two incidents in particular encouraged demands for a nuclear power phase-out and led to the establishment of phase-out plans in several countries, including Germany. When the urgency of climate change, along with the necessity of rapid decarbonization, became more evident, many scientists and activists alike pleaded for the use of nuclear power as a transitional technology. They argued that the use of nuclear power could help to avoid shortages in energy supplies caused by the relative unreliability of renewables like wind and solar energy.

In this important new study, Tim Judson, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and renowned nuclear power expert, does away with persistent myths about the importance of nuclear power. Starting not from an abstract position but by considering real-world events, the author demonstrates the very concrete challenges that the production of nuclear power poses for the environment as well as for our economy.

In addition to the long-lasting environmental impacts of nuclear power production, Judson pays attention to how it affects communities—and in particular poor communities of color—through the mining and processing of uranium as well as the disposal of nuclear waste. While mainly focusing on the production and use of nuclear power in the US, as well as possible phase-out scenarios, this study can easily be applied to other contexts around the world. Informed by global trends in climate change, this study is of utmost urgency in showing us a path toward a nuclear-free, sustainable future.

Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office introduces this study as an opportunity to carefully investigate the possible potential as well as the dangers of nuclear power, and the question of its suitability as a transitional technology.

FULL REPORT (English/PDF)

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE ACTION | ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG NYC

Brunswick Nuclear Hurricane Florence UPDATE w/Dave Lochbaum | NUCLEAR HOTSEAT

Brunswick Nuclear site map of vulnerability to flooding from ocean surge, Cape Fear River.
From Dave Lochbaum powerpoint (available below)

LISTEN NOW

#Brunswick #Nuclear reactors - is it in hot or cold shutdown? What's ongoing flooding danger f/Cape Fear River now that Brunswick is a nuclear island unreachable by land? Dave Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, explains. Plus plutonium-laced #RockyFlats "wildlife refuge" opens - Leroy Moore. Nuclear Hotseat #378

This Week’s Featured Interviews:

• BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR UPDATE – Dave Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains the safety status of Brunswick Nuclear Reactors 1 & 2, both the same model as melted down at Fukushima Daiichi.  Learn the difference between hot shutdown and cold shutdown – and how the industry simply uses “shutdown” to spinspeak us all!
  LINK to Dave Lochbaum’s pdf on Brunswick specs, CLICK HERE.
• LeRoy Moore is a writer and former academic   closely associated with Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, who since 1979 has focused on issues of public health, environmental well-being, and nuclear abolition related to the now closed Rocky Flats nuclear bomb factory.

Numnutz of the Week (for Outstanding Nuclear Boneheadedness):

So many choices, so hard to choose, when the entire industry is out of it’s f’ing mind!

Activist Links:

• Intertribal Gathering at Red Butte, Montana – Oct. 5 – tribal members only; open to the public Oct. 6-7.  Sponsored by the Havasupai Tribal Council.  CONTACT:  928-448-2731

LISTEN NOW: Brunswick Nuclear Hurricane Florence UPDATE w/Dave Lochbaum

What Are Coastal Nuclear Power Plants Doing to Address Climate Threats? | Truthout

…According to maps prepared by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), around one in four of the world’s 460 working commercial nuclear reactors are situated on coastlines. Many were built only 10–20 meters (30–70 feet) above sea level at a time when climate change was barely considered a threat. 

In the US, where nine nuclear plants are within 2 miles (3 kilometers) of the ocean and four reactors have been identified by Stanford academicsas vulnerable to storm surges and sea-level rise, flooding is common, says David Lochbaum, a former nuclear engineer and director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 

Lochbaum says over 20 flooding incidents have been recorded at US nuclear plants since the early 1980s. “The most likely [cause of flooding] is the increasing frequency of extreme events,” he says.

“There was no consideration of climate change when most US plants were built,” says Natalie Kopytko, a University of Leeds researcher who has studied nuclear power plant adaptations to climate change. “They used conservative models of historical reference. Also, they were largely built at a calm period, when there were not many major storms.”

“While an accident has never yet happened due solely to sea-level rise and storms, the flooding experienced at Fukushima resembles what could occur in the future from sea-level rise,” says Kopytko.

Considering Climate Change

IAEA’s current global safety standards were published in 2011. These state that operators should only “take into account” the 18- to 59-centimeter (7- to 23-inch) sea-level rise projected by 2100 in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fourth assessment report, published in 2007. 

But those safety standards don’t factor in the most recent assessment of the IPCC, published in 2013–14. This scientific consensus report has seas rising 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 1 meter (39 inches) by 2100, depending on how far temperature continue to rise and the speed at which the polar ice caps melt. 

A 1-meter (39-inch) increase, combined with high tides and a storm surge, significantly increases the risk of coasts and nuclear stations being swamped, says Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. 

“Nuclear stations are on the front line of climate change impacts both figuratively and quite literally,” Mann says. “We are likely profoundly underestimating climate change risk and damages in coastal areas…”

read: What Are Coastal Nuclear Power Plants Doing to Address Climate Threats? 

Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the Climate

Help Us StopTrump’s #DirtyEnergy Plan and Save Our #CleanEnergy Future

Trump has issued an order calling for a massive dirty energy bailout to ensure America continues to rely on nuclear and coal for years to come. This is a fight for America’s clean energy future and everything that comes along with it--millions of good jobs, thriving communities, and safe, healthy food, air, and water. 

Despite renewable energy's benefits, President Trump is prioritizing coal and nuclear industries and their executives by funneling billions of dollars in subsidies to keep dirty, old, dangerous power plants going.

NIRS is organizing to stop them, and we need you to join us!  We have to educate and mobilize the public across the country. It is going to take petitions, protests, and lots of grassroots organizing – and we have to start now.

If this story sounds familiar ... it should! Trump tried to do the same thing last year, demanding massive subsidies for uncompetitive nuclear and coal plants. 

But we stopped him! In January, federal regulators listened to the public and said no. Now, just a few months later, Trump is back at it again -- with an even larger and worse bailout plan.

We’ve started this crowdfunding campaign to raise $20,000 to get this effort off the ground.  The good news is: Your donation will go twice as far toward making that happen. Another generous supporter is offering to match every dollar you contribute, so your support will be doubled.

Stopping Trump’s Nuclear and Coal Bailout means more of the dirty radiation and soot factories will close, and demand for solar, wind, and other clean, safe, efficient, renewable energy sources will accelerate.

But here’s the thing: we need to reach thousands more people, to make sure they know about Trump’s plans and can take action to stop it. We ask that you make a contribution to support the campaign, so we can reach more people like yourself. We also hope you will tell your friends about the petition, as well as this crowdfunding effort. 

The good news is, some generous donors have offered to match every donation, no matter how big or small, to help us get there. For every dollar you and your friends give, another donor will match it.

Thanks for taking the time to learn about our campaign and for whatever support you can give.

For a Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free World!

The NIRS TeamJasmine Bright – Communications Specialist
Diane D’Arrigo – Radioactive Waste Project Director
Lyn Griffith Taylor – Energy Democracy Specialist
Denise Jakobsberg – Administrative Coordinator
Tim Judson – Executive Director
Mary Olson – Director, NIRS Southeast

Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the Climate

#DontNuketheClimate #COP23 | Rally on 11.11, Bonn, Germany

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The only sure way to stop the global warming impacts of energy use is to transition as quickly as possible from antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … to the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable, efficient, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.

The International Anti-Nuclear campaign "don't nuke the climate" – On 03.11.2017 October 03.11.2017, at a press conference in bonn, its agenda for the approaching Conference " Cop23".

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

Rooted in human rights violations and environmental racism: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.

Too Dirty: Nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit radiation and radioactive waste. Scientific bodies agree have confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Too Dangerous: Continued use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to more Fukushimas, Church Rocks, and Chernobyls. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.
Too Expensive: Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.

Too Slow: Use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radioactive waste, and other pollutants.

FUNDRAISER

dont-nuke-the-climate-2017.causevox.com

PETITION 

dont-nuke-the-climate.org/sign/

Don't nuke the climate
dont-nuke-the-climate.org
facebook.com/Dont-nuke-the-climate-43412295027…/

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirs.org/
facebook.com/NIRSnet/

• original post  on Facebook with images and a share button: facebook.com/robert.cherwink/posts/10209890984610620

on facebook: Robert Cherwink - #nonukes :: #DontNuketheClimate #COP23 | Rally...

Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | NIRS | COP23 ::: #DontNukeTheClimate

NIRS is a founding member of the Don't Nuke the Climate coalition -- a global campaign to stop nuclear power and promote urgent, ambitious action on climate change. We are based in the US and serves the grassroots anti-nuclear and sustainable energy movements. 

It is more important than ever for the voices of people from the US and North America are heard at the COP23 global climate conference next month in Germany. President Trump opposes climate action and is working to undermine the Paris Agreement. His administration is strongly promoting nuclear power and fossil fuels -- most dramatically with moves to create a $100+ billion bailout for nuclear and coal power plants! 

This is a bad example for the rest of the world, and we must make sure that other countries know Americans oppose nuclear power and want a nuclear-free, carbon-free world.

Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change - it is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, and too slow to solve the climate crisis -- and it has a long track record of violating basic human rights. From mining uranium to making nuclear waste, to disasters like Fukushima and Chornobyl, it poisons the environment and endangers our health and security. Climate action funds must focus on sustainable, 100% renewable energy solutions -- and not false, dirty energy sources like nuclear, dirty biomass, and large-scale hydro power.

The Don't Nuke the Climate! campaign is a grassroots international campaign to bring that message to the COP23 global climate conference at Bonn, Germany in November 2017.  

We have to stop nuclear power from raiding climate action funds to build nuclear reactors, mine uranium, and make radioactive waste.

Thanks for whatever support you can give!

#DontNukeTheClimate

>> Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | NIRS

#DONTNUKETHECLIMATE :: COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)

Jasmine Bright photo

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The only sure way to stop the global warming impacts of energy use is to transition as quickly as possible from antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … to the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable, efficient, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

Rooted in human rights violations and environmental racism: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.

Too Dirty: Nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit radiation and radioactive waste. Scientific bodies agree have confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Too Dangerous: Continued use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to more Fukushimas, Church Rocks, and Chernobyls. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.

Too Expensive: Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.

Too Slow: Use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radioactive waste, and other pollutants.

Sign our petition

COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)

Please Join Us in Supporting the Don't Nuke the Climate Campaign! | Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian

David Blackburn says we need decentralised energy sources; David Lowry on nuclear not being zero-carbon technology; plus letters from David Hayes and Fred Starr

…Your incisive editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument you set out. The editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.”

This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult the published operating record of reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shutdowns) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years after the 2011 Fukushima disaster – and became hugely expensive “stranded assets.”

On alleged zero-carbon status of nuclear plants, you repeat a similarly erroneous assertion made in your editorial of 1 October 2005 (Pre-empting debate), where you wrote: “The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does.”

You printed my response to this assertion (There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, 20 October 2005) in which I set out the various ways the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole “cradle-to-grave” nuclear fuel chain (uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and final long-term management) is properly calculated. I pointed out that the nuclear industry’s proponents, such as those gathered at last week’s World Nuclear Association jamboree in London, are fond of spreading fake news such as describing nuclear energy as “non-carbon emitting”. It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history…

read: Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian

Hurricane Irma poses toughest test for U.S. nuclear industry since Fukushima | Reuters

Hurricane Irma poses toughest test for U.S. nuclear industry since Fukushima

No Climate Money for Nuclear Power - NIRS

August 8, 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Tim Judson, NIRS
+1 212-729-1169 (mobile)
TimJ@nirs.org

Peer de Rijk, WISE-International
+ 31 20 6126368
Director@wiseinternational.org

Gedelitz, Germany – An international coalition lead by organizations from nine countries launched a new campaign today–“Don’t Nuke the Climate”–to ensure nuclear power and other false climate solutions do not derail global efforts to reduce the extent of global warming. The coalition is mobilizing for the COP 23 global climate conference in November, where the nations of the world are meeting to make critical decisions on how to solve the problem of climate change. Specifically, the fate of $100 billion per year of investment is at stake the Green Climate Fund. Nuclear power companies are attempting to gain access to the fund to finance uneconomic power projects, which their own governments and the private sector will not or cannot fund.

The coalition’s website and petition can be found on the website: http://www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 countries, established a global consensus for the goal of limiting global warming to at most 2.0 C (3.8 F), with an ambition to go no higher than 1.5 C (2.7 F). The Paris Agreement’s targets are not arbitrary: a global average temperature rise of 1.5-2.0 C will still have enormous human, economic, and environmental impacts: sea-level rise, severe storms, drought and food shortages, resource conflicts, refugee crises, etc. Achieving these goals is literally a matter of life and death, but there is much uncertainty about the global community’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to meet those goals.

The Don’t Nuke the Climate coalition is mobilizing for Bonn with the simple message: we can and must meet the goals of Paris–real, viable climate solutions are at hand–but not if we waste time and money on false solutions like nuclear power. The coalition mobilized in 2015 for the COP 21 climate conference in Paris, and grew to a total of 500 organizations worldwide supporting the “Don’t Nuke the Climate” call.

“We urgently need to tackle climate change. But we have to do this in a just way,” said Peer de Rijk, director of WISE-International. “This means we must actively exclude false solutions like nuclear power, as we otherwise will be thrown back in time and  increase the environmental crisis.”

“Nuclear power is a serial human rights violator and its promotion will worsen the very climate justice problems the Green Climate Fund is supposed to solve,” said Tim Judson, executive director the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, based in the U.S.A. “Nuclear corporations target First Nations and Global South countries are for radioactive contamination and resource destruction, radiation has a disparate impact on women and girls, and these persistent pollutants are hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, creating indiscriminate impacts on future generations. The Green Climate Fund must never be used to finance such violations of human rights and principles of climate justice,” Judson concluded.

The coalition is opposing intensified efforts by the nuclear power industry to gain access to financing for nuclear power projects through the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF was founded through global climate talks in 2009, and the 2015 Global Climate Agreement set a target of $100 billion per year in financing to Global South countries for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (labeled “mitigation” measures) and infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change (labeled “adaptation” measures).

“South-Africa is in urgent need for robust climate action,” said Makoma Lekalakala That means money for adaptation but also clean, affordable, safe new energy for everyone. A choice for nuclear would only increase the financial burden put upon millions of South-Africans.”

“The Indian state often blocks international negotiations on climate citing the needs of its poor,” said Kumar Sundaram, director of Dianuke in India. “But that in reality is nothing more than the Indian elite and industries demanding for the right to be equally irresponsible with the climate. Domestically, the government policies are only widening the energy access gap and imposing nuclear, coal and big dam projects that threaten to destroy fragile ecologies and most vulnerable communities. It’s unfortunate that the Indian government’s climate policy reinforces the myth of nuclear power being safe and clean. India is standing on the wrong side of history in the post-Fukushima world – setting up world’s biggest, costliest and most unsafe imported nuclear plants by undermining safety and environmental clearance norms and brutalizing massive but peaceful grassroots. India cannot be allowed to be a liability-free market where the declining global nuclear lobby rehabilitates itself.”

Nuclear power’s economic failures are worsening, with major firms such as Westinghouse and Areva going bankrupt, reactors being shut down, and new reactors canceled due to excessive costs, chronic construction delays, and aging infrastructure. Without access to massive amounts of public dollars such as the GCF, the industry faces inevitable decline, and cannot compete against true climate solutions, such as solar, wind, and energy efficiency and conservation.

As a result of, the industry has intensified its lobbying effort since Paris, and now includes industry trade associations, such as Foratom; the International Atomic Energy Agency; major nuclear corporations, including Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, which is targeting developing nations for nuclear development; and nuclear professional organizations and front groups, including the World Nuclear Society and Nuclear for Climate.

“Nuclear is dying – without taxpayer subsidies,” said Reinhard Uhrig, Head of Campaigns for Global 2000, the Austrian affiliate of Friends of the Earth International. “It now promotes itself as ‘green’, carbon-free electricity (which it is not) to get at public money such as in the climate funds established to combat global warming in particular in the global south. We cannot let the nuclear lobby get away with this – no subsidies for nuclear!”

“Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build, and we need real climate solutions today,” said Vladimir Sliviak, executive director of Ecodefense, based in Russia. “The effective approach is developing renewable energy and energy efficiency. We don’t have money or time to spend on false solutions.”

The coalition is urging nations participating in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) to prohibit the use of the Green Climate Fund on technologies that make the societal and environmental impacts of climate change worse, like nuclear power, so-called “clean” coal, large-scale hydro-power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and oil, food- and forest-based biomass, and REDD+ — which are broadly considered false solutions and frequently entail human rights violations.

“There is no acceptable solution worldwide for high level radioactive waste, the only consequence is to stop nuclear power right now,” said Kerstin Rudek from Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg, based in Germany.

“It’s a shame that Germany failed to include the uranium enrichment facility in Gronau and the fuel element factory in Lingen in its nuclear phaseout policy. Both facilities export to nuclear power plant in Belgium and in France. Germany needs a complete nuclear phaseout and has to start immediately with phasing out coal as well.”

Organizations leading the “Don’t Nuke the Climate” coalition represent nine nations spanning four continents:

Global/International

World Information Service on Energy – International

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Africa

Earthlife (South Africa)

Asia

Dia-Nuke (India)

Ecodefense (Russia)

KFEM (South Korea)

Europe

Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg (Germany)

Global 2000 (Friends of the Earth – Austria)

North America

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (U.S.A.)

Download press release.

-30-

No Climate Money for Nuclear Power - NIRS

Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the #Climate | Crowdfunding and Petition

Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the Climate

SIGN THE PETITION

Help Us Mobilize to Save #CleanEnergy from Trump’s #DirtyEnergy Plan

The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a massive dirty energy bailout to ensure America continues to rely on nuclear and coal for years to come. This is a fight for America’s clean energy future and everything that comes along with it--millions of good jobs, thriving communities, and safe, healthy food, air, and water. 

Despite renewable energy's benefits, President Trump is prioritizing coal and nuclear industries and their executives by funneling billions of dollars in subsidies to keep dirty, old, dangerous power plants going.

NIRS is organizing to stop them, and we need you to join us!  Over the next six months, we have to educate and mobilize the public across the country. It is going to take petitions, protests, and lots of grassroots organizing – and we have to start now.

If we can stop Trump’s Nuclear and Coal Bailout, more of the dirty radiation and soot factories will close, and demand for solar, wind, and other clean, safe, efficient, renewable energy sources will accelerate.

We’ve started this crowdfunding campaign to raise $40,000 to get this effort off the ground.  The good news is: Your donation will go twice as far toward making that happen. Another generous supporter is offering to match every dollar you contribute, so your support will be doubled. 

You might have already signed our petition against the Nuclear and Coal Bailout (if you haven’t, just click here)—that’s a great start!

But here’s the thing: we need to reach thousands more people, to make sure they know about Trump’s plans and can take action to stop it. We ask that you make a contribution to support the campaign, so we can reach more people like yourself. We also hope you will tell your friends about the petition, as well as this crowdfunding effort. 

The good news is, some generous donors have offered to match every donation, no matter how big or small, to help us get there. For every dollar you and your friends give, another donor will match it.

Thanks for taking the time to learn about our campaign and for whatever support you can give.

For a Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free World!

The NIRS TeamJasmine Bright – Communications Specialist
Diane D’Arrigo – Radioactive Waste Project Director
Lyn Griffith Taylor – Energy Democracy Specialist
Denise Jakobsberg – Administrative Coordinator
Tim Judson – Executive Director
Mary Olson – Director, NIRS Southeast

Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the Climate

SIGN THE PETITION