nuclear-news

the carbon footprint of nuclear war

The carbon footprint of nuclear war
The Guardian Duncan Clarke 2 January 2009 Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth’s atmosphere by even the smallest nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares the environmental costs of developing various power sources Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city, along comes a pesky scientist and points out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate.

 According to a new paper in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very limited nuclear exchange, using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a full-scale nuclear war, would cause up to 690m tonnes of CO2 to enter the atmosphere – more than UK’s annual total.The upside (kind of) is that the conflict would also generate as much as 313m tonnes of soot. This would stop a great deal of sunlight reaching the earth, creating a significant regional cooling effect in the short and medium terms – just like when a major volcano erupts. Ultimately, though, the CO2 would win out and crank up global temperatures an extra few notches…………………
……………The purpose of the paper is to compare the total human and environmental costs of a wide range of different power sources, from solar and wind to nuclear and biofuels.

One of the side-effects of nuclear power, the report argues, is an increased risk of nuclear war: “Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide.”…………..

………it’s interesting to note that nuclear looks very bad in the report even if you ignore the warfare component of the carbon footprint. Far more serious (by a factor of 15 to 25) is nuclear’s opportunity cost: the emissions savings lost during the decades of planning and building of each nuclear station.

January 3, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Keep to emission cuts, say economists

Keep to emission cuts, say economists

The Age Ari Sharp

January 3, 2009

ECONOMISTS have given a lukewarm response to Kevin Rudd’s carbon emission reduction targets, but have urged the Federal Government not to be spooked by the global economic downturn.

Last month, the Government revealed it would be seeking to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 unless an international agreement on carbon trading could be reached. In that case, the reduction target rises to 15 per cent. The 2050 target is a 60 per cent reduction.

“There’s never going to be a good time to introduce this, so the current crisis should not be used as an excuse to delay,” said Chris Caton from BT Financial Group. So far, the timing of the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) does not appear to have been affected, with the Government committed to a 2010 start date.

University of Queensland academic John Quiggin argued that the pursuit of environmental policies could in fact bolster the economic recovery. “Use green jobs programs as a focus of expansionary policy,” he said………………………….Monash University academic Jakob Madsen said steep price increases on carbon were needed to encourage the development of alternative fuel sources. “In Denmark, 40 per cent of the energy will come from renewable resources by 2020. Australia should easily be able to meet that target.”………………………..

The Scandinavian social democracy will be in the spotlight in December when world leaders gather in Copenhagen in an attempt to nut out a global agreement on emission reductions beyond 2012.

“The world is watching Australia and we can use this opportunity to help broker an international agreement,” said Austrade’s Tim Harcourt.

Keep to emission cuts, say economists

January 3, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bush administration’s uranium mining decision could affect tribes | Indian Country Today | Content

Bush administration’s uranium mining decision could affect tribes INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY By Rob Capriccioso

Story Published: Jan 2, 2009

Story Updated: Jan 2, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the Department of the Interior, in early December eliminated a regulation that gave two congressional committees the power to require the secretary of interior to set aside public lands from uranium mining and other extractive activities. The action, coupled with renewed federal interest in uranium mining, is causing concern for some Western tribes.

In effect, the Bush administration’s decision could open up public lands in and around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. The aftereffects of such developments could have devastating effects on the health of tribes in and around the Grand Canyon, according to environmentalists and health and legal experts………………………“The Havasupai have been ardent opponents of uranium mining in the watersheds above where they live,” Clark said. “If mining is occurring in these watersheds, it increases the potential for radioactive material to be transmitted to surface waters and groundwater aquifers.”

The Hualapai Tribe has also come out strongly against uranium mining in its area, having recently passed a tribal resolution banning the practice on its lands……………………Charles Vaughn, chairman of the Hualapai Tribe:“We do not want to see the byproducts of uranium production stored in places like Yucca Mountain for the remainder of our lifetimes and leave others with the concern of the potential harm this would bring to our progenitors Grandfather Water and Mother Earth.

“We as an indigenous people are taught to respect and hold sacred those elements that provide the essence of our life. It is out of this belief that we share our concerns for proposed uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park.”…………………..Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz. “I am disappointed that the Interior Department under the Bush administration has chosen to throw out federal rules it finds inconvenient to its goal of allowing uranium mining within a few miles of our nation’s premiere National Park, the Grand Canyon,”

“This last minute change puts at risk the health of millions of citizens of the West who rely on the Colorado River of the Grand Canyon for their drinking water supply, as well as visitors to the park and tribal communities within and around the Grand Canyon.”

Bush administration’s uranium mining decision could affect tribes | Indian Country Today | Content

January 3, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Groups press for tribe-friendly renewable energy policies | Indian Country Today | Living

Groups press for tribe-friendly renewable energy policies INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY By Rob CapricciosoStory Published: Jan 2, 2009Story Updated: Jan 2, 2009WASHINGTON – As more tribes explore and get involved in the renewable energy field, a network of tribal groups is asking President-elect Barack Obama to support tribally owned and operated renewable energy projects, along with economic development initiatives that could reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
“The Obama economic stimulus plan that incorporates a green economy and green jobs portfolio must include provisions for access of these resources by our Native nations, our tribal education and training institutions and Native organizations and communities,” according to a policy statement released jointly Dec. 17 by the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the International Indian Treaty Council and the Honor the Earth environmental group.

“When considering energy production, resource extraction, housing and energy efficiency, it is essential that the incoming administration takes into account the disproportionate impacts of climate change and energy development on American Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages, and the potential for catalyzing green reservation economies.”

The groups represent approximately 250 grassroots tribal organizations and tribes that want to ensure American Indian participation and prosperity in the green economy of the future.

The statement says that federal government subsidies for the nuclear, coal, gas and oil industry should be rapidly phased out with a proportional ramp up of subsidies for renewable technologies and locally administered conservation and efficiency improvements. ………………………………..In sum, members of the tribal network believe that forward thinking energy and climate policy will have the ability to transform tribal and other rural economies, while also providing a basis for an overall economic recovery in the U.S.

Groups press for tribe-friendly renewable energy policies | Indian Country Today | Living

January 3, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment