Having attended two events related to potential solutions to carbon emissions, I am feeling more determined that vast financial investment is being burnt ineffectively. Lund University hosted “Carbon capture and storage” looking into new research directions on the politics, promises and pitfalls of this new technology, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) made the case of “False promises of nuclear energy”.
An important component of mitigating climate change is finding solutions to replace fossil fuels to help reduce carbon emissions. Carbon storage and capture technology (CCS) is an emerging technology to capture carbon in the air to stabilise CO2. The technology is not fully developed and has high costs not only in its initial R&D but in building and implementing the technology. CCS is put forward as a possible solution in developed countries that are locked in the fossil fuel system, however the views panellists presented had convinced me that developing this technology is eating away precious financial resources. CCS will only encourage developed countries to stay locked in a fossil fuel system and cannot benefit society until as late as 2030. Moreover, there is already public concern and scepticism to CCS and transparency of negative aspects of the technology may further drive a gap between public discourse and CCS discourse.
Panellists argued that CCS could be coupled with bio-CCS to help prevent reinforced fossil fuel lock in. In Dr. Asbjorn Torvanger’s (CICERO) point of view, carbon price is more important than the cost of CCS but phasing in CCS will take time. CCS is not a competitive mitigation policy and while the technology is not fully developed, financial resources could be steered towards renewable energy projects. Prof. Philip J. Vergragt (Tellus Institute) stated that out of 1200 scientific articles written on CCS, 40-50 articles mentioned fossil fuel dependency with no mention of renewable energy. Therefore, is there any point in developing a highly expensive technology that doesn’t capture even 90% when money could be going to projects that develop renewable technology for long-term potential?
Nuclear energy is another hot topic discussed by Heads of States as a latent source to replace fossil fuels. Panellists invited by WILPF made compelling arguments for the human aspect of nuclear energy, exploring health issues transmitted from nuclear radiation. It is a concern that the UK government is considering nuclear energy in order to move away from French energy dependency. However, the negative health implications from using nuclear energy are highly unforeseen. Panellists from Russia, US, Kazakhstan and Kurdistan shared stories of how women are giving birth to mutated children, and these genes are being passed on from generation to generation. No-one is taking responsibility for these defects and no legislations are in place to ensure safety or provide benefits beyond $2 per day to those who are already affected. It is worrying that the President Sarkozy of France is touring around the world to promote nuclear energy as a climate change solution. Civil society must take a stance to address issues felt by people and we must ensure that nuclear energy is approved in the COP15 negotiation.
Following the WILPF event, an argument broke out between women who presented these cases and a representative from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who argued that nuclear energy is a way forward. Public opinion raised from this outbreak showed consensus against nuclear energy, however I fear that COP15 holds a high number of nuclear energy lobbyists that could potentially encourage the use of nuclear as a mitigation tool.
As a UK WILPF delegate, I was interviewed by a journalist from Belarus to give a statement on WILPF’s view on nuclear coupled with climate change, the UK stance on nuclear energy and the work I am doing in London.
No comments:
Post a Comment