UN report on global increase in wildfires due to climate change change
Independent Australia By Sue Arnold | 28 February 2022,
By Sue Arnold | 28 February 2022, Australia can expect an increase in catastrophic wildfires according to a recently released UN report entitled Spreading like wildfire: The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires.
Wildfires are now a global issue, with predictions of exponential increases as a result of climate change, poor land-use planning and a lack of focus on mitigation strategies.
The report makes from grim reading. Over 50 experts from research institutions, government agencies and international organisations from around the globe contributed to the report.
No estimate has been made of the economic cost of wildfires by governments. A U.S. study mentioned in the UN report estimates that the annual economic burden of wildfire to be between $71.1 billion–$347.8 billion (AU$98.3 billion–$480.8 billion).
Costs to human lives exposed to wildfire smoke are growing exponentially. The Lancet journal estimates the annual mortality as a result of exposure resulted in 30,000 deaths across 43 countries.
According to the UN study, the extreme weather conditions that were potentially a leading cause of the Australian wildfires in 2019/2020 were shown to be 30 per cent more likely to have occurred because of climate change.
Scientists involved predict that by the end of the century, the probability of wildfires like the 2019/2020 fires will likely increase by 31-59 per cent in a given year……………………………
Australia is very similar to the U.S. in that most of the spending goes on helicopters, firefighters, efforts to put out the fires. It’s often not a good use of resources; other integrated management approaches can be more successful. ………….
IA asked Professor Baker to comment on the many studies which indicate logging of forests raises the risk of more wildfires:
‘When you log, you reduce resilience.’
Plantations are a focus of the report. Victoria and South Australia have significant numbers of eucalypt plantations, many burned incinerating thousands of animals. According to the fire experts, the increased availability of fuel and extensive continuous areas allows fire to spread rapidly and unconstrained. Accumulation of flammable fuels in monoculture plantations, plus extended droughts due to climate change, generate increasingly frequent conditions to high intensity forest fires………………
The International Association of Wildland Fire will hold a Fire and climate: issues and futures conference in Melbourne in June 2022 focused on better preparation and response to ‘this formidable challenge in the new decade’ https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/un-warns-australia-in-danger-of-increased-wildfires,16098
Britain’s nuclear submarine base at risk from climate change
The United Kingdom’s nuclear military bases are being threatened by climate change, according to a recent report from the Nuclear Consulting Group. Paul Dorfman, the report’s author, said that the U.K.’s coastal nuclear infrastructure is vulnerable to flooding, due to rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms.
“All of the models or predictions, all of the analysis, all of the data has really begun to run hot,” Dorfman told CNBC. “It’s good that people are taking notice, but it’s bad that this new data is showing us that we really do need to get our acttogether.”
The report also found that coastal flooding frequency is estimated to increase by between 10 and more than 100 in several European locations. In the United States, “the Pentagon has recently reported that
79 nuclear military bases will be affected by rising sea-levels and frequent flooding,” Dorfman added.
CNBC 21st Feb 2022
New USA Federal Report Warns of Accelerating Impacts From Sea Level Rise.
New Federal Report Warns of Accelerating Impacts From Sea Level Rise. The
global average sea level is rising 2 inches per decade and speeding up, but
in some regions, the rate is more than twice that fast. Many residents of
coastal Southern Mexico don’t know that the sea around them is likely to
rise another 15 to 20 inches in just the next 30 years.
Those projections
were confirmed Tuesday by an updated report from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and NASA using new satellite data and climate
models along with improved evaluations of historic data from tide gauges
dating back more than 100 years.
“What we’re reporting today is
historic,” said NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad, who told Americans that,
on average, sea level at their coasts will climb 10 to 12 inches in the
next 30 years and 2 feet by the end of the century.
Inside Climate News 16th Feb 2022
European dispute over the Taxonomy plan to class nuclear power as ”green”, qualifying it for billions of euros in subsidies.
EU Observer, 7. FEB, 07:22, Barely a month since France took over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, and France and Germany are already in dispute over the highly-controversial EU proposal to grant nuclear energy and natural gas a green investment label under the EU taxonomy on sustainable finance rules.
The EU proposal was published on Wednesday (2 February) with only minor edits – despite the internal row it had sparked amongst several member states.
The initial proposal itself had been quietly distributed to EU members on New Year’s Eve – the day Germany closed half of its six nuclear power plants.
If the proposal now passes the EU’s legislative procedures without getting blocked by the commission or the parliament (both unlikely scenarios), it will likely channel billions of euros into the construction of new nuclear power plants across the bloc…………………….
During the past weeks France has taken a strong stance in support of nuclear energy with president Emmanuel Macron labelling it as the “sovereign solution”, while Germany has expressly rejected the integration of nuclear power into the green taxonomy…………….
After their success in September’s federal elections, German Greens secured their position as the second-largest party in the current coalition government – making them crucial for the future of the German coalition.
No compromise
And nuclear energy is one of the topics the Greens are not willing to compromise on.
The Greens, born out of the 1980s anti-nuclear protests, were quick to call out the EU over the new energy proposal with the German vice-chancellor and climate minister, Robert Habeck, accusing the EU of “greenwashing”.
‘Nuclear is neither green nor sustainable” – Austria to sue European Commission if it approves nuclear power for financial incentives
Austria’s chancellor responded to the news by saying “nuclear power is neither green nor sustainable”. “I cannot understand the decision of the EU,” Karl Nehammer said. He said he would back his environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, in pursuing legal action at the European Court of Justice if the plans go ahead.
“This decision is wrong,” Ms Gewessler said. “The EU Commission today agreed its greenwashing programme for nuclear energy and [the fossil fuel] natural gas.” Luxembourg has also said it will
join in legal action. The EU has set itself a goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050 and the Commission argues that to get there, a great deal of private investment is needed. Its proposals are meant to guide
investors.
BBC 3rd Feb 2022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60229199
No excuse. Australia’s nuclear regulator must not approve the government’s planned nuclear waste dump in a FLOOD-PRONE FARM.
Kimba flooding https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21824, By Peter Remta – 3 February 2022 The years of touting by the federal government and the responsible ministers of Kimba in South Australia as the perfect and inarguably superior location for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility have dramatically and quite suddenly disappeared. There is no doubt that the severe flooding caused by the recent heavy rains in South Australia which included the Kimba district is a serious and essential reason for immediately aborting the proposed management facility at Napandee farm near Kimba as the selected facility location |
From expert advice it is quite clear that Kimba as a whole – and not just Napandee – is far too dangerous to become the location for the holding of nuclear waste particularly as the results of the present flooding may take up to ten years to overcome without any further flooding
This is especially the case as nuclear isotopes are dispersed and travel freely in water which can affect and contaminate all the surrounding land for many centuries making it completely unusable
There cannot be any excuse by claiming that this flooding may be a once in a lifetime unexpected event as there had been extensive previous floods in the Eyre Peninsula over sixty years ago
More importantly the nature of the proposed facility is that it must be a completely safe and competent environment to hold nuclear waste for several centuries which the federal government claims to be the case as part of its planning
The government as the proponent of the Kimba nuclear waste facility cannot deny knowledge of floods – and also fires – as risks for the purposes of the safety requirements for management of nuclear waste in Australia
The advice by overseas experts is that these two major risks are far more pertinent to Australia than other countries with nuclear waste and consequently the regulatory bodies should or must include these risks within the Australian waste management framework and other applicable prescriptions and standards for the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste.
This must obviously include the storage or disposal of nuclear waste at suitably located and established facilities
l informed ARPANSA some eighteen months ago about the formal inclusion of these risks in its safety codes and the requirement for the long overdue start of the safety case for Kimba but the response was that it was not necessary at that stage
The prescriptive requirement is for a safety case for any nuclear installation be started at the very beginning as to why a specific site is considered worthy of investigation
The safety case is then updated as the site characterisation proceeds and if the site fails to live up to initial expectations then it should be abandoned.
This process is an important part of public engagement and if one waits until the end of the process then the argument for safety is less credible and the chance to generate public support has been lost (1)
It seems to be a case of falling asleep at the wheel as mentioned previously by the Hon. George Gear with regard to the regulatory role of ARPANSA (2)
Irrespective of the colourful presentations and nicely sounding spin by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and even to some extent by ARPANSA there is no doubt that this is a serious breach of the safety requirements that should have been applied to Kimba at the outset
I think that ARPANSA will shortly hear from the UN Special Rapporteurs involved with this situation so that they can properly protect the human rights of the Kimba community.
It will be interesting to see how specifically ARPANSA and ANSTO will deal with the lack of a safety case from the beginning of the government’s proposals as this seems a major failing in proper and necessary safety regulation
As also previously pointed out the federal government should have given the Kimba community the opportunity and with the necessary funding for getting an independent assessment and review of the government’s proposals particularly as there had been so much vehement opposition to the proposed facility
I am not in any way suggesting that this would have stopped the flooding but there should have been proper and early regulation and oversight of the risks of floods and other calamities whether natural or man-made in a much stronger manner
It is now quite obvious that the Kimba region is completely unsuitable and inappropriate for the establishment of the national waste facility and ARPANSA as the regulator should immediately stop anything further being by or on behalf of the government to pursue the establishment of the facility
This should include the withdrawal and cancellation of ministerial declaration to select Napandee as the site for the proposed facility even if the necessary legislative changes may need to await the next parliament
At least this may give the community of Kimba and in fact the whole Eyre Peninsula some comfort and respite from their long-standing concerns.
Despite scientific objections, the European Commission sticks to its draft plan to include nuclear and gas in “taxonomy for sustainable finance”
Brussels has stuck by a decision to classify nuclear power and some forms of natural gas as green energy, defying criticism from scientists and climate change experts over its landmark sustainable finance rules.
The European Commission on Wednesday published a largely unrevised final text of its The EU’s taxonomy is a sweeping classification system for industries that produce about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions to guide private capital into environmentally sustainable activities.But Brussels has come
under fire for bowing to pressure from pro-nuclear and pro-gas member states to include the two technologies under the green label in an initial draft first reported by the Financial Times.sustainable finance” which has come under fire from EU governments, environmental campaigners and the European Investment Bank for its acceptance of nuclear power and forms of carbon-emitting gas.
The EU’s taxonomy is a sweeping classification system for industries that produce about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions to guide private capital into environmentally sustainable activities.But Brussels has come under fire for bowing to pressure from pro-nuclear and pro-gas member states to include the two technologies under the green label in an initial draft first reported by the Financial Times.
FT 2nd Feb 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/0acb5e0f-8322-413f-911d-fda09951ea99
France24 2nd Feb 2022
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220202-eu-presses-on-with-green-label-for-gas-nuclear
Independent 2nd Feb 2022
European Taxonomy – more like Fakeonomy – now including coal and nuclear
EU includes gas and nuclear in guidebook for ‘green’ investments, Commission’s move widely criticised as undermining efforts to keep global heating below 1.5Cm Guardian
Jennifer Rankin in Brussels, Thu 3 Feb 2022 The European Commission has been accused of undermining its climate goals after it defied critics by pushing ahead with plans to include gas and nuclear in an EU guidebook for “green” investments.
Gas and nuclear were deemed bridge technologies to meet the EU’s target of net zero emissions by 2050, in long-awaited proposals on the EU’s “taxonomy for environmentally sustainable economic activities”, which were published on Wednesday.
“The reason we are including gas and nuclear in the way we are doing it is because we firmly believe that this recognises the need for these energy sources in transition,” the EU commissioner for financial services, Mairead McGuinness, told reporters.
Critics said including gas and nuclear in a guide intended to prevent greenwashing jeopardised the EU’s climate goals and hopes of keeping global heating below 1.5C.
“The European Commission is significantly undermining the EU’s credibility as a climate actor,” Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green MEP and vice-chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, said. “At the UN climate summit in Glasgow, small steps were taken towards phasing out fossil fuels. Yet, unfortunately, the commission is already turning back the clock and leaving the door open to the gas industry.”
Laurence Tubiana, the chief executive of the European Climate Foundation and an architect of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, said: “The EU taxonomy was envisioned as a vital tool to align financial flows with the Paris agreement. Instead, Europe is undermining its climate leadership and lowering standards in the EU and beyond. When a gold standard does emerge elsewhere, this taxonomy will be left behind.”
Since the proposals leaked on New Year’s Eve 2021 – fuelling bitter accusations of a lack of transparency – the commission has made minor tweaks that make it easier for gas projects to get in the green guidebook……
The taxonomy – intended to channel billions of private money into climate-friendly investments – is fast becoming one of the biggest controversies of Ursula von der Leyen’s tenure as European Commission president. Last month Greta Thunberg and climate activists slammed the plans as “fake climate action” that flout scientific advice.
In a further sign of anger, campaign group Avaaz staged a mock burial of the taxonomy on a roundabout outside the commission headquarters, with activists wearing face masks of Von der Leyen, Germany’s Olaf Scholz and France’s Emmanuel Macron. France pressured Von der Leyen to grant the stamp of approval for nuclear power, while Germany had lobbied for the inclusion of gas, although Scholz’s coalition government is split on the issue.
“Europe is witnessing our biggest setback yet in our moonshot mission,” said Patricia Martín Díaz of Avaaz. “Labelling fossil gas and nuclear as green is incompatible with the EU’s 2050 climate targets and our hope of keeping 1.5C alive.”……………
Other critics include an expert panel convened by the commission, which said the plans were “not in line” with the original regulation, agreed in July 2020. In its stinging rebuke, the EU platform on sustainable finance – a group that includes industry, NGO and finance experts from EU institutions – said they had doubts about the criteria for gas and nuclear, while “many are deeply concerned about the environmental impacts that may result”………..
The EU taxonomy became law in July 2020, but legislators left important details to be resolved through so-called delegated acts – secondary legislation meant for technical issues that is not subject to the same degree of ministerial and parliamentary oversight.
Critics have accused the commission of abusing the process, by smuggling in the controversial issues of nuclear and gas into the latest delegated act, rather than drafting a separate law.
Only a supermajority of 20 out of 27 EU member states, or a majority of the European parliament’s 705 MEPs can now defeat the plans during a scrutiny period of four to six months that began on Wednesday.
Commission officials played down the threat of a legal challenge from Austria and Luxembourg, describing it as “a very theoretical discussion”. Both countries oppose nuclear power, while Green ministers in the German coalition government have dismissed the plans as greenwashing.
Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands had urged the commission not to label gas as green, while Germany declared its opposition to nuclear…………
Lisa Fischer, who leads the E3G thinktank’s work on climate neutral energy systems, said gas and nuclear had no place in the taxonomy. “Gas investments are not only harmful to the climate they are also increasingly financially risky. Nuclear makes the EU’s energy transition more costly than it needs to be.”
In a sign of the intense arguments, McGuinness revealed that had been no unanimity among the commission’s top 27 officials; she said an “overwhelming majority” of EU commissioners had backed the plans.
“We were legally obliged to do this,” she said referring back to the initial July 2020 law. Opponents in national capitals, however, say the commission had no obligation to include gas or nuclear. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/02/eu-guidebook-taxonomy-green-investments-gas-nuclear-included
Inclusion of nuclear and gas is ”attempted robbery”
 |
Taxonomy: inclusion of nuclear and gas is “attempted robbery” – Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46036/taxonomy-nuclear-gas-attempted-robbery/
Taxonomy: inclusion of nuclear and gas is “attempted robbery” – Greenpeace, Greenpeace European Unit 02/02/2022 Brussels, 2 February 2022 – The European Commission today officially presented a controversial plan to label fossil gas and nuclear energy as sustainable under the taxonomy regulation. The plan would incentivise potentially hundreds of billions of euro in private investments to flow away from clean energy like renewables and instead go to nuclear energy and fossil gas, accelerating the climate crisis.
Apart from producing dangerous and unmanageable radioactive waste, nuclear reactors take so long to build that they cannot come online quickly enough to contribute to reaching EU climate targets by 2030, which scientists say is necessary to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis. Gas is also the single most polluting fuel in the EU, with soaring prices sparking a European energy crisis.
Greenpeace EU sustainable finance campaigner Ariadna Rodrigo said: “I’d like to report an attempted robbery, please. Someone is trying to take billions of euro away from renewables and sink them into technologies that either do nothing to fight the climate crisis, like nuclear, or which actively make the problem worse, like fossil gas. The suspect is at EU Commission HQ and has disguised herself as someone to be taken seriously on the climate and nature crisis.”
“This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claims to global leadership on climate and the environment. The inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is increasingly difficult to explain as anything other than a giveaway to two desperate industries with powerful political friends,” added Rodrigo.
The Platform on Sustainable Finance, a body of over 50 experts from business, academia and civil society, which advises the European Commission on its green agenda, said in its official feedback to the plan that the provisions on nuclear energy, especially radioactive waste, violate a key principle of the taxonomy, which aims to ensure that any technologies included “do no significant harm” to the environment. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, whose members represent more than €50 trillion in assets, has also said that the Commission’s proposals on gas would “channel capital towards activities not compatible with the EU’s commitment to climate neutrality by 2050.”
Environmental lawyers at NGO Client Earth have said that the inclusion in the taxonomy of fossil gas would be incompatible with several EU laws, including the 2021 EU Climate Law. Several governments and organisations are reportedly planning legal challenges to the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy.
Next steps
The Commission’s plan is set to face an immediate backlash from MEPs, who have been cut out of the process and denied the chance to scrutinise this controversial plan until now.
Greenpeace is calling on MEPs to vote this proposal down. A majority of the Parliament, or 353 MEPs, is required to reject it.
Greenpeace is also calling on all financial institutions in the EU not to categorise nuclear and gas investments as environmentally sustainable, and to be transparent and science-based about their energy and climate investment decisions.
Contacts:
Ariadna Rodrigo – Greenpeace EU sustainable finance campaigner: +32 (0)479 99 69 22, arodrigo@greenpeace.org
Increased risk of flooding due to population increase and global heating
Climate change and population growth could drive a 26% rise in US flood
risk by 2050 – disproportionately impacting black and low-income groups
– new research finds. The study, published in Nature Climate Change,
models property-level changes in flood risk across the US over the next
three decades.
It finds that in 2020, the US saw an “average annual
loss” of $32bn from flooding, but that cost could rise to $41bn by 2050.
The authors find that population growth will be the main driver of
increasing flood risk, causing 75% of the rise in “average annual
exposure” to flooding by 2050. The impacts of climate change –
including rising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes and changing rainfall
patterns – will account for 19% of the increased risk.
Carbon Brief 31st Jan 2022
Small island communities – pioneers for sustainability and climate action
Small island communities have often been pioneers for sustainability and
climate action. Are they a snapshot of a greener future, or a distraction
from bigger problems elsewhere?
By 2030, Rathlin wants to be acarbon-neutral island, following in the footsteps of dozens of small
islands around the world taking the fight against climate change into their
own hands by embracing renewable energy, electric vehicles and
sustainability.
To name a few, there’s the Danish island of Samsø, which
relies on wind energy and other renewables for power and heat. Or Tilos in
Greece, which was the first island in the country to become energy
self-sufficient.
Or Jeju, the South Korean holiday island which, like
Rathlin, aims to be carbon neutral by the end of the decade. Some say these
green islands or “eco-islands” are shining examples.
They demonstrate the
power of small communities and act as beacons lighting the way towards a
world less dependent on fossil fuels. But others argue that islands of a
couple of hundred or a few thousand inhabitants are mere drops in the ocean
when rapid, global change is required. Worse, these so-called good examples
might end up distracting mainlanders from their own responsibilities
regarding climate change. Are eco-islands just a waste of time?
BBC 1st Feb 2022
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220131-the-worlds-tiny-islands-inspiring-green-action
Nuclear not competitive’ and too late for energy transition: Enel Green Power CEO.
Nuclear not competitive’ and too late for energy transition: Enel Green Power CEO, Italian renewables giant ‘obviously’ won’t invest in nuclear due to long construction times and high costs, Salvatore Bernabei says https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/nuclear-not-competitive-and-too-late-for-energy-transition-enel-green-power-ceo/2-1-1155407 By Bernd Radowitz 26 Jan 22,
Enel Green Power has no intention to invest in nuclear power despite the European Commission’s plan to label the technology as sustainable, the Italian renewables supermajor’s chief executive Salvatore Bernabei said.
Construction times of conventional nuclear power plants are far too long in relation to the need to get the energy transition done within the next 20 to 30 years, the CEO explained.
“If you think about the current technology and the current timing of development and construction of nuclear plants, it is much bigger than 10 years (from the moment) you take the initial investment decision,” Bernabei said at a press briefing.
You have the permitting, then you have the construction,” he said, adding that all projects currently being built have exceeded their planned construction time, and their completion takes “two to three times more than initially expected.”
“They are (also) out of budget. So, saying that nuclear could help in the transition with the current technology – I leave you to (make) the conclusion.”
His comments came after the EU Commission had proposed to include nuclear power and fossil gas under certain circumstances in its taxonomy that labels energy projects as sustainable and thus facilitates financing. The taxonomy proposal enjoys the backing by France, Finland and several Eastern European EU states that want to build or expand atomic power, but the inclusion of nuclear has been strongly opposed by Germany, Austria, Spain and Luxembourg.
Despite its stated wish to build new nuclear reactors and revamp existing ones to extend their operational life, France has suffered severe setbacks during the construction of the Flamanville 3 reactor, one of the few nuclear plants being built in Europe. The country this winter also had to switch off a series of atomic power stations, forcing it to import large volumes of electricity from neighbouring countries.
French state-owned utility EDF earlier this month has said the plant of the novel European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) type at Flamanville will cost another €300m more than forecast and fuel loading is being pushed back by up to six month, the Reuters news agency had reported. The 1.65GW reactor according to French media will then have cost French taxpayers a record €19.1bn ($21.5bn) instead of the €3.4bn originally budgeted, and have taken 15 years to build, ten years longer than originally planned.
Similar construction time and cost overruns have been experienced in Finland, where operator Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) has recently started to commission the Olkiluoto 3 reactor, also an EPR reactor.
Germany’s government last weekend issued a statement rejecting the inclusion of nuclear power into the EU’s taxonomy.
“It is risky and expensive. New reactor concepts such as mini-reactors also entail similar problems and cannot be classified as sustainable,” economics and climate minister Robert Habeck and environment minister Steffi Lemke said in a joint reaction.
It is clear to everyone that the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of nuclear is much bigger than €100 per megawatt hour, Bernabei agreed.
Small nuclear reactors (SMRs), which by some investors such as Bill Gates are touted to be a quick solution helping the energy transition, and supposedly are safer, may not be such a quick fix either, the EGP CEO pointed out.
“Then you talk of the next generation (of nuclear power). But in the next generation, you have this word ‘next’, (which) has to be defined yet. We are speaking about something that could be ready in 2040 – perhaps,” Bernabei said.
The first SMR reactor is slated to be built in China by 2026, “and they are the first mover,” the CEO added.
“So, whatever the taxonomy would say, the question will be ‘is there anyone available to invest in a technology that would need more than 10 years to become a reality? And perhaps when it becomes reality, the market has completely changed its dynamic with a cost that today is not competitive.”
“As Enel we don’t intend to invest in nuclear obviously.”
Italy after a referendum following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster had switched off nuclear power in the by 1990, but the far right Lega party of Matteo Salvini lobbies for it renaissance.
Former nuclear regulators say that nuclear power is not a feasible option for tackling the climate crisis.
Nuclear energy not feasible way to tackle climate crisis, former regulators say https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/nuclear-energy-climate-crisis-experts-b2001076.html
It would be unlikely to make relevant contribution quickly enough, experts say, Zoe Tidman, 26 Jan 22, Nuclear energy is not part of any feasible strategy that could be used to tackle climate change, former top officials from national regulators have said
The experts said it was too costly, risky and unlikely to have a significant impact quickly enough.
The comments were made in a joint statement by Dr Gregory Jaczko, Professor Wolfgang Renneberg, Dr Bernard Laponche and Dr Paul Dorfman, who have been involved in government nuclear regulation and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and the UK respectively.
The former top officials said they felt a “collective responsibility” to comment on whether nuclear energy could play a significant role in trying to tackle the climate crisis.
“Ireland must take firm stance against greenwashing of EU Taxonomy” – Member of European Parliament
“Ireland must take firm stance against greenwashing of EU Taxonomy” –
Chris MacManus MEP. “The inclusion of gas and nuclear energy in the
Sustainable Finance Taxonomy would amount to greenwashing and must be
firmly opposed by the Irish government and MEPs,” said Chris MacManus,
MEP for the Midlands Northwest. “There is a very narrow political window
in which to reject this greenwashing attempt, and Ireland needs to be clear
and vocal in its opposition to the Commission’s proposal.”
Sinn Fein 25th Jan 2022
The threat of nuclear winter hangs over our warming planet
The threat of nuclear winter hangs over our warming planet, Pearls and Irritations By Andrew GliksonJan 26, 2022 Even a limited nuclear war would inject enough smoke and dust into the atmosphere to threaten the survival of our species.
The impact of the Cretaceous-Paleocene asteroid 66 million years ago released enough dust and debris to cloud large parts of the planet, causing the mass extinction of some 80 per cent of animal species. When Turco et al. (1983) and Carl Sagan (1983) warned the world about the climatic effects of a nuclear war, they pointed out that the amount of carbon stored in a large city was sufficient to release enough aerosols, smoke, soot and dust to block sunlight over large regions, leading to a widespread failure of crops and extensive starvation.
The current nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia could potentially inject 150 teragrams of soot from fires ignited by nuclear explosions into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (Coupe et al., 2019), lasting for a period of 10 years or longer, followed by a period of intense radioactive radiation over large areas.
Even a “limited” nuclear war, such as between India and Pakistan, would release enough aerosols to affect large regions, killing millions or billions through starvation. As stated by Robock et al. (2007):
“The casualties from the direct effects of blast, radioactivity, and fires resulting from the massive use of nuclear weapons by the superpowers would be so catastrophic … the ensuing nuclear winter would produce famine for billions of people far from the target zones.”
With the global arsenal of nuclear warheads at around 13,000 – 90 per cent of which are held by Russia and the US – a regional conflict such as in Ukraine or Taiwan would threaten to spill worldwide. As the clock of atomic scientists is set at 100 seconds to doomsday, the rising probability of an intended or inadvertent nuclear war, against the background of rising global warming, indicates an hour of truth for our species – a choice between the defence of life on earth and global suicide……………………. https://johnmenadue.com/the-threat-of-nuclear-winter-hangs-over-our-warming-planet/
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (180)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 