Nuclear energy is not ‘clean’ or ‘green’ in the European Union’s taxonomy

In the end, however, the poor economics of nuclear technology raise doubts that any labeling of nuclear energy as “clean” or “green” will spur private sector investment. Today, despite the industry’s self-proclaimed nuclear renaissance, private investment in nuclear technologies is minimal, and nuclear proponents are pinning their hopes on massive public sector handouts.

BY SUSAN O’DONNELL, MADIS VASSAR | November 8, 2023  https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/11/08/nuclear-energy-is-not-clean-or-green-in-the-european-unions-taxonomy/402401/

As calls are increasing for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to release the government’s “transition taxonomy” of energy sources aligned with climate goals, misinformation is circulating about the role of nuclear energy in the European Union’s taxonomy.

The Canadian government is expected to identify technologies for priority private sector investment to help Canada meet its “net-zero” targets.

An Oct. 13 letter to MPs from the Canadian Nuclear Association, a nuclear lobby group, states that “The European Union (EU) formally voted to include nuclear energy in its EU taxonomy.” This statement is partially true, but misleading.

On May 16, at a meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee, Bloc Québécois MP Mario Simard asked if Canada was one of the only countries that considers nuclear to be clean energy. In response, Mollie Johnson, assistant deputy minister of Natural Resources, said “under the taxonomy of the European Union, they have classified it as clean energy as well.” This statement is incorrect.

The European Commission (EC) established its Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance to develop scientific guidelines for the taxonomy. The group was asked to develop recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities that can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, while at the same time avoiding significant harm to sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, address pollution prevention control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

 After the report excluded nuclear because of the generated toxic radioactive waste, the lobby group convinced the EC to commission another report by the nuclear-friendly Joint Research Centre which concluded that nuclear was eligible. After weeks’ more lobbying, a slight majority of the European Parliament voted in favour of adding nuclear and fossil gas in the taxonomy only as “transitional technologies”—definitely neither as green, clean, nor sustainable. Also, the members of the European Parliament did not approve any public investments in nuclear energy.

The transitional technology classification requires a country seeking funding for nuclear energy to fulfill stringent safety criteria. This means having solid plans within five years, including financing, for an operational deep geological disposal for used fuel and high-level waste in 2050. This criteria will be a huge challenge for states other than Sweden, France and Finland. The Onkalo used nuclear fuel repository in Finland was built at a cost of 5-billion euros, and after some 40 years, is still not licenced. Most other countries do not have those funds available, meaning that potential nuclear power-plant operators would have to contribute to the costs, making nuclear even less competitive in the energy market.

A similar political power play lacking wider environmental considerations surrounds another recent document, the Net-Zero Industry Act. The aim is to promote investments in the production capacity of products key to meeting the EU’s climate neutrality goals, and, again, nuclear was initially not included. Once again, strong lobby efforts won the reintroduction of nuclear, first as a “non-strategic” technology due to its long build times and staggering costs—factors that push any tangible climate benefits far into the future, as opposed to “strategic” climate mitigation options such as solar panels, batteries, and heat pumps. In the latest text, however, any distinction between different technologies is gone. As the Greens in the European Parliament commented, the Act has lost the initial focus, and it’s now for just about any technology.

Given that nuclear energy is not considered “green” in the EU taxonomy, financial analysts have questioned its value as a global “gold standard” because investors might prefer to use other taxonomies that value their real green investments. Canada has the opportunity to learn from these blunders.

In the end, however, the poor economics of nuclear technology raise doubts that any labeling of nuclear energy as “clean” or “green” will spur private sector investment. Today, despite the industry’s self-proclaimed nuclear renaissance, private investment in nuclear technologies is minimal, and nuclear proponents are pinning their hopes on massive public sector handouts.

However, aside from the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $970-million ‘low-interest loan’ for Ontario Power Generation to develop an American design for a small modular nuclear reactor, the public funds for new nuclear proponents from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada have been just under $100-million in the past three years. Those funds require matching private sector funding that has not materialized. This is a far cry from the billions of dollars required to develop just one small modular nuclear reactor, and where that money will come from is still an open question. #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, is lead investigator for the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University. Madis Vasser, PhD, is senior expert on SMRs for Friends of the Earth Estonia.

November 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Define ‘Nazi’: Western media muddies history to cover up Canada’s SS scandal

 https://www.rt.com/news/584101-western-media-nazi-canada/ 6 Oct 23 #Ukraine

“Fighting against the USSR didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi,” Politico says. Maybe. But Yaroslav Hunka definitely was one

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

Historical revisionists are now trying to argue that actual Nazi soldiers were just anti-Soviet resisters. 

We knew that it was coming. It was only a matter of time. And now attempts to whitewash the actions of actual Nazis from WWII have begun – all because a bunch of ignoramuses in the Canadian parliament cheered one alongside Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, and it all just makes Ukraine and its Western supporters look bad.

It also makes Western lawmakers look like they have no clue when it comes to Nazism in Ukraine – either past or present. So instead of asking questions about their judgment, it’s time to ask whether you’ve just misunderstood Nazis. 

The newly-resigned Canadian House Speaker introduced Ukrainian one-time Waffen-SS soldier Yaroslav Hunka as a Ukrainian (and naturalized Canadian) who fought Russians back in the day, yet apparently no one bothered to do the math. The Soviet Union was allied with the West against Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was who fought against the Russians. Okay, it wasn’t the only one – there were others, like the Polish Home Army, which fought against both the Soviets and the Germans. So maybe Hunka was part of that? That’s the theoretical explanation the German Foreign Office offered when it emerged that the German ambassador to Canada was also present at the standing ovation in parliament. Yeah, that must have been it. A Ukrainian going to war to protect Ukraine from the Soviet Union by joining the Polish Home Army. Sounds plausible.

Oh, no, wait, he was actually in the Waffen SS, namely the First Galician Division – a unit that mostly consisted of Ukrainians and killed Poles and Jews. He joined it voluntarily and later described his decision in an essay published by an American online magazine. And now Poland wants him extradited for alleged war crimes. 

Leaving aside convoluted historical revisionism, those who don’t acknowledge the nuance in this Nazi’s service are just feeding Russian propaganda, according to some Western commentators. “This history is complicated,” one wrote recently in POLITICO. “Because fighting against the USSR at the time didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi, just someone who had an excruciating choice over which of these two terror regimes to resist.”

It’s pretty safe to say that someone who volunteered for the combat branch of the Nazi Party’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel (SS) organization is an actual Nazi – unlike Canadian Freedom Convoy truckers and their supporters who were treated like Nazis by this same Canadian government, which went as far as to even block some of their bank accounts. Have Hunka and the actual Nazis who were welcomed to Canada in the wake of the war ever had their bank accounts blocked? Or is that just for people who honk too loudly in protest? Who’s more embarrassing to Canada: naturalized Nazis, truckers, or the parliament? 

So apparently, we’re supposed to now believe that Waffen SS soldiers aren’t really Nazis, just anti-Soviet resistors. Are we supposed to also look deep into the heart and intentions of each individual who served voluntarily in the Nazi uniform to determine how they really felt about it? Who knows – perhaps Hunka didn’t really mean it when pledging loyalty to the Führer. Maybe he’s like an employee at Home Depot who can’t be held responsible for store policies – even though, in the case of Nazis, that didn’t fly either, as the Nuremberg Trials proved. 

It takes some Olympic-grade mental gymnastics to suggest that neither Zelensky, who’s Ukrainian himself, nor Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who holds degrees in Russian and Slavic studies from Oxford and Harvard and whose grandfather edited a Ukrainian Nazi newspaper during WWII, couldn’t have known that this guy just might be a Nazi… but they whooped it up for him anyway. But now, their actions are on the verge of being reframed. 

It’s all such a backside-covering move to compensate for a total lack of due diligence – the same kind that was demonstrated when it emerged that Canada had knowingly trained and equipped Azov Battalion neo-Nazis for Ukraine’s current conflict with Russia while seemingly being bothered far more by the notion that the press risked finding out about it than by the idea of training guys with Nazi tattoos. 

To accept historic reality, instead of trying hard to weasel Justin Trudeau and the Canadian establishment out of this embarrassment, is to let “Russian propaganda” win. Seriously. That’s the argument. “Canada’s enemies have thus latched on to these simple narratives, alongside concerned citizens in Canada itself, with the misstep over Hunka being used by Russia and its backers to attack Ukraine, Canada and each country’s association with the other,” wrote the POLITICO commentator. Know who else has “latched on” to the “I can’t believe they could be that dumb” narrative around this Canadian Nazipalooza? Honest people and patriots who are, in fact, less interested in peddling narratives that serve a handful of establishment elites and more interested in defending historical realities that serve all of humanity rather than reframing or perverting them to suit an ideological cause – anti-Russian or otherwise.

Trudeau said in the same breath as his apology for the Hunka incident that “it’s going to be really important that all of us push back against Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation, and continue our steadfast and unequivocal support for Ukraine.” It seems that some have already jumped on the opportunity to redefine defense of well-established historical record as “Russian propaganda” and to impose the whims of Western leaders as the new dystopian reality.

October 7, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment