The
Energy Net | The
Energy Net |
|
Stop
the Global
Warming Spin
1.
Nuclear power produces more CO2 than renewables. Earthlife
SA graphic of
UK Royal Institute for International Affairs report; Climate Change Briefing "Nuclear power is no solution to climate change: exposing the myths" (FOE Scotland) "A clever man solves a problem; a wise man avoids it." Einstein Nuclear-Nuclear: Exposing the myths The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions. Exposing the myths 1: Nuclear power is economical and cost effective The full costs of nuclear power have been seriously underestimated by all countries which have the technology, and it is only recently that the true costs have begun to come to light. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning and provision for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, resulting in a massive drain upon economies. This drain will continue for many years to come as the expensive and dangerous task of nuclear decommissioning gets underway. Privatization and liberalization of the market in the UK, has led to the true costs of nuclear power being exposed. It has become clear that nuclear power cannot exist in a competitive energy market without significant subsidy from Government. This process is now being followed around the world with investors being unwilling to accept the high cost and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, if fully comprehensive insurance was required to cover all of the risks of nuclear accidents, the cost of electricity from nuclear power would increase many times from the present level. Reactor decommissioning costs also remain a major uncertainty. In the UK, for example, the cost of dealing with the unwanted debris of the nuclear industry is officially estimated at about US$70 billion. Of this, just US$22 billion is covered in secure funding arrangements, with the remaining US$48 billion (almost 70%) likely to be paid for by taxpayers. The nuclear industry's claim that, "In most countries, the full costs of waste management and plant decommissioning will be funded from reserves accumulated from current revenues" [1] is clearly untrue. Countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, are continuing to build new nuclear plants even though it has been shown that investment in energy efficiency measures is the quickest and safest way to tackle their energy crises. For example, the nuclear power plants proposed to replace the remaining reactors at Chernobyl have consistently been shown not to be the least-cost option. Also, in terms of cost-effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear power fairs very poorly. In 1995, after a year-long, exhaustive review of the case for nuclear power, the UK Government concluded that nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways in which to cut CO2 emissions. In the USA improving electricity efficiency is nearly seven times more cost effective than nuclear power for obtaining emissions reductions [2]. Nuclear power one of the least effective and most expensive ways in which to tackle climate change. Table 1: CO2 abatement options, in order of cost-effectiveness
(10% discount rate) [3]
Exposing the Myths (Continued) (First Draft March 2007) For anyone who was involved with the antinuclear movement in the past, we all remember the appalling behavior of this country's biased corporate media. Not until right before Chernobyl did we see articles like the one in Forbes magazine, calling the nuclear industry the largest financial disaster in U.S. history. The primary reason the national media promoted nuclear power throughout most of its first 50 years lies with the United States' top down cold war agenda. Patriotism and nationalistic tactics were used to attack anyone who had political or ethical differences of opinion. Questioning the country's cold war strategies meant being labeled a traitor, which the national media used as a weapon against anyone opposing broad federal mandates. Most citizens who obtained their news via TV or newspapers were never given a chance to fully educate themselves on the issue. And its happening again. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act made the development of nuclear power a top priority matter for this country's national security. Just as we all witnessed the media's role after 9-11 in initiating the global war on terror, any attempt to question the development of nuclear power was perceived as a direct act of unpatriotic behavior. Furthermore, the government as part of its cold war against the Soviet Union, set up a barrier of secrecy around nuclear power that included any history of its flaws, accidents, technical development and decisions. Thus, state and local laws were banned from opposing nuclear development and still are today. Even though the cold war is over, the 1954 Atomic Energy Act's cold war mindset in the government continues today. For this reason it is critical that opponents of the new push for nuclear power demand that the cold war mentality that took decades to overcome a generation ago, not be reimposed on this issue. Opposition to nuclear power does not mean you are unpatriotic. The media's top down corporate control refuses to relinquish this agenda in its dealings with this issue as well as others. In the mid 1980's the Washington Post did a survey of American's political views and discovered that just over 20% of the voting public fit into traditional liberal or conservative viewpoints. This simplistic two dimensional political spectrum has been used by the media to manipulate dozens of issues. The immensely important discovery that nearly 80% of all adults in this country are swayed by the choice of what TV news coverage they watch has been used by corporate conservatives to ring in a political move to the right across the country. Since then, we have witnessed the dramatic push to create a "Matrix of dumbed down citizenry". For example, even though it is common knowledge that the corporate media is the leading recipient of all political campaign advertising dollars, you will never hear that it is also the leading opponent of any kind of political finance reform. The most alarming aspect of the Iraq invasion disaster was the fact that the media had marching orders, discovered but not publicized, to promote the country's 2003 attack. This same agenda is being pushed today with the resurgence of nuclear power development. The 2nd largest nuclear power vendor in the world is General Electric and they still own NBC. Westinghouse, the largest vendor, which owned CBS is now owned by Japanese companies, but the company's loyalty to the past hasn't changed. Disney used its cartoon characters to promote nuclear power in the past, and now that it owns ABC, it doesn't need the cartoon characters to do the promotion. About the only chance today of getting anything close to fair or balanced coverage on TV is with PBS, but since the leadership of both political parties is pronuclear, don't expect PBS to be fair about this issue. They never really have done so yet. The day we see a serious documentary covering the nuclear power industry's past, will be the day we take up the debate about fairness. We aren't talking about a 10 minute hit piece here. In a classic example of just how biased our corporate driven news is, during the peak of the campaign in California to stop the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility, a newly hired journalist from the SF Chronicle turned into a spy for the antinuclear camp. It was disclosed that the Chronicle, was purposely censoring all news having to do with nuclear power that was streaming off of their wire services. The pronuclear side was being badly beaten across most the country as public opposition was fierce, organized, and almost everywhere. Rather than give any kind of ammunition to opponents, media coverage was almost completely shut down. The reporter was threatened with firing on his Saturday shift if he attempted to put anything nuclear into the paper. He showed us how stories that were covered, were written to influence political perceptions by demographic area. He showed us one piece and how it had been written 3 different ways, each being positioned in politically different demographic areas of the Chronicle's readership areas, with the intention of manipulating the reader's perception (opinion). The best example of demographic manipulation of news came with the first major SLAPP suit in the U.S. against the antinuclear movement, when the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Abalone Alliance, in an attempt to get its membership list and force them to pay for the costs of the 1981 blockade at Diablo Canyon. The Alliance was forced by its lawyers not to talk about the case in public. When the Pacific Legal Foundation finally dropped the case nearly 4 years later, just before it was to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (the case had lost at every court level) the announcement of the outcome was put on the front page of the SF Chronicle in San Luis Obispo, but only garnered a paragraph on the obituary page in the bay area. This is a different era. The Internet exists today as a tool to counter the nationalist media's top down political agenda. However, as activists come together to counter the current bandwagon push to finance a new generation of nuclear power, it is important that organizers use the new tools at its disposal to undermine the Million Dollar tactics of the nuclear industry's public relation's wizards. Today, the media is under attack for its role in promoting the disastrous Iraqi invasion. It is rapidly losing the younger generation and more savy information consumers, in the shift towards the Internet. However, over 80% of Americans still rely on TV for virtually all of their news and political perceptions. The prominent liberal media analyst George Lakoff has demonstrated the importance of understanding linguistics, perception management and the issue of framing issues. As we all know, Americans want to feel good about themselves, are goal oriented and always must fix things. These basic drives are being manipulated in the current global spin being used by the nuclear industry and the PR driven news media. As European research has shown that the nuclear sollution to climate change is the worst possible option and must be stopped. It took years for Amory Lovin's and the movement to shift the nuclear industry's PR tactics into a broader systems analysis, that included energy efficiency and renewables. The potential to reintroduce that same perception into the current nuclear industry agenda is greater than ever. But shouldn't it be about time that we also link the failed media agenda and trust issues together in countering this brutal media machine? There is a wonderful option to drive a stake into the old school of top down news that has given us the "poverty is a crime" = "war on poverty", or "the war on drugs" = the most drug addicted society in the world... The following is a list of media reframing strategies shift the debate to renewables rather than just nuclear!
|
