Dear Miranda, dear all, Apologies for the length of this email. I find the subject important.
The way nuclear energy is being introduced as a solution to climate change is painful to see for me. As a Chernobyl child, and as someone who has seen the effects of nuclear disasters in Japan (where I met Miranda for the first time 😀 ) and in other parts of the world, my interest in green politics has started with anti-nuclear activism in Turkey, where I am from. Nuclear energy has been proposed in Turkey as a solution to many concerns in the past, ranging from oil dependency to assumptions of ever-increasing demand. We have managed to debunk many of these arguments in the past. Only recently, and with explicit support from China and Russia, Erdogan has started the building of three nuclear reactors in Akkuyu, Mersin. (Financing is provided by Russian investors, with 93% from a Rosatom<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosatom> subsidiary, which will keep 51% of shares at all times.) Neither the site (earthquake zone), nor the choice of technology (GEN III+PWR) is sound. Critically, the uranium enrichment process will be super costly, Turkey has no uranium, and there is no waste management plan in place. It is not impossible to imagine that there are dreams of becoming a nuclear power in the back of some military minds. But speculation aside, nuclear energy is one of the most anti-democratic, centralised, expensive, top-down, and technocratic ways of producing energy. Despite all evidence, some might still find it agreeable to use nuclear energy to transition into a fossil-free economy in other countries, of course. It may be imagined that in other countries nuclear energy production involves less risks, or costs. But even then, a pro-nuclear stance necessarily means taking some environmental AND security risks, and opting for one of the less diffused, less citizen empowering, more resource and technology dependent energy transition models. I am not writing this email to change the minds of those who think this way... But I am concerned with the amount of money and "volunteers" the nuclear lobby brought to the business side of COP26. There were a number of selective statistics and problematic assumptions in their glossy brochures. When you were passing by, the volunteers would approach you and ask of you wanted to take a selfie with their cute teddy bear mascot as they repeated these statistics. Nowadays I also see more pro-nuclear arguments on climate news. Conservative parties in Sweden are rejoicing with the possibility of building more reactors. Whether one is pro or against or undecided, this is a political and ethical decision, which we each base on our life experience and ideology. It is a hegemonic struggle between those who find the risks associated with nuclear energy acceptable and those who do not. What matters is that we can discuss it, we can keep the deliberative public space open, accessible to all citizens, especially those who are exposed to various risks involved, including but not only the experts. When I read Miranda's email, and the following thread, I was worried that we might be losing this deliberative space: obviously, it was just a misunderstanding and nobody was intentionally trying to misrepresent her. But her concerns were somehow equated to a pro-nuclear position at some point in that thread. (She has already clarified her position, and certainly does not need my help with that.) My goal is only to highlight that nuclear energy is a highly contentious issue. Please do not assume that because someone is concerned about climate change and argue for energy transitions they are also pro-nuclear. For me and some other colleagues, it is a red line and we find nuclear energy production unjustifiable from an ecological, democratic, or ethical viewpoint. But it is OK to disagree on this issue and keep discussing it. That discursive space is very important and valuable. Universalising a pro-nuclear position for climate activists or scholars would be hegemonising this deliberative space that we need for democracy. Best wishes, Ayşem ---------------------- Ayşem Mert (she/her/hers, Dr./Mx. – why do pronouns matter?) Associate Professor of Environmental Politics Department of Political Science, Stockholm University Universitetsvägen 10 F, 114 18, Stockholm, Sweden www.statsvet.su.se/mert @ayshemm Latest Publications Mert A. and D. Hine (2021) On Being the Right Size: Scale, Democracy and the Anthropocene in G. Dürbeck and P. Hüpkes (eds) Narratives of Scale in the Anthropocene: Imagining Human Responsibility in an Age of Scalar Complexity, Routledge, pp. 161-176. Mert A. (2021) Challenges to Democracy in the Anthropocene in D. Chandler, F. Müller and D. Rothe (eds) International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham., pp. 291-309 Chan, S., et al. (2021) Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework. Global Policy, 12(3): 245-259. Behagel, J.H. and Mert, A., (2021) ”The political nature of fantasy and political fantasies of nature,” Journal of Language and Politics, 20(1):79-94. -------- Original message -------- From: "Schreurs, Miranda" <miranda.schre...@hfp.tum.de> Date: 26/02/2022 20:21 (GMT+01:00) To: as...@u.washington.edu Cc: gep-ed@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [gep-ed] The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions Hi Aseem, Hello al, Thanks for your commentary. It is informative. But I don’t agree with all of your assessments. Working as co-chair of a committee dealing with high level radioactive waste management, I can not agree with you that nuclear energy is the path forward. It also takes much too long to build. European experience shows that countries that heavily invest in nuclear, are slow to build out renewables. They are also at risk of big supply problems if they become too heavily dependent on nuclear. Germany will most certainly be expanding its renewable energy push. It is currently getting about 50% of its electricity from renewables (up from 6% in 2000: actually in the first two months of 2022 it has been getting well over 50%). With the Ukraine crisis, the expansion of renewables will be putting into fast speed. There are still many ways to enhance energy efficiency and energy savings. Plans are to be climate neutral by 2045 with 65% renewables by 2030. I think we might now get there as early as 2025 or 2027. In response to a request from Peace Boat in Japan, I wrote the attached memo this morning. It is in response to the following statement from five former Japanese prime ministers criticising the EU’s sustainability taxonomy which lists both natural gas and nuclear as sustainable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXNi2gLjxm). I agree with their critique. My response is attached. Best, Miranda Am 26.02.2022 um 20:02 schrieb Aseem Prakash <as...@uw.edu<mailto:as...@uw.edu>>: Hi Miranda (and GEP community): Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Ukraine crisis. Here is a commentary that Nives and I published in Forbes.com<http://forbes.com/>: "Ukraine Crisis is Terrible News for Climate Policy." Abstract: Effective decarbonization cannot be separated from energy security. Rising gas prices mean that fracked shale gas is back. About two dozen U.S. gas tankers are headed to Europe and an additional 33 might follow. Moreover, renewable energy will not create energy self-sufficiency as long as China controls the renewable energy supply chain, especially the critical minerals. Western democracies should invest in domestic mining while taking into account the concerns of local communities. The climate movement needs to reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy and carbon capture because the Ukraine crisis may have revied the fortunes of the fossil fuel industry, at least in the short term. Here is the commentary: https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2022/02/23/ukraine-crisis-is-terrible-news-for-climate-policy/?sh=2fa73d7d5041 If you cannot access it, please email me and I will send you a PDF. Best, Aseem ____________________________________________________________ ASEEM PRAKASH Professor, Department of Political Science Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences Founding Director, UW Center for Environmental Politics<http://depts.washington.edu/envirpol/> University of Washington, Seattle aseemprakash.net<http://aseemprakash.net/> ________________________________ From: gep-ed@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed@googlegroups.com> <gep-ed@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Schreurs, Miranda <miranda.schre...@hfp.tum.de<mailto:miranda.schre...@hfp.tum.de>> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:44 AM To: gep-ed@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed@googlegroups.com> <gep-ed@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [gep-ed] The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions Dear GEP-EDers I am totally distracted and disgusted by what is going on in the Ukraine. Putin’s march into the Ukraine is frightening. It reminds me of what happened in Poland, Czechoslovakia, central and Eastern Europe. I grew up in a neighbourhood of Europeans who fled the Soviet Union’s invasions of the past (Prague Spring). The potential for a break out of a larger war is real and a Cold War is certainly back. Putin has taken Europe and to some extent the US on a ride — and the west fell into his net. He pursued the game of economic cooperation and interdependence, with major European and especially German companies become heavily dependent on Russian resources. Germany is about 50 percent dependent on Russia for its gas supplies and is also highly dependent on its oil and coal. Europe did not imagine what is now unfolding. Over the years, NATO forces have been weakened. And despite what happened with the annexation of Crimea (in the Ukraine) and parts of Georgia, the West did little to deter what is now coming to light as a long planned strategy on Putin’s part to rebuild at least parts of the Soviet empire. NATO is now scrambling to strengthen border defences and alliances. Hopefully the sanctions which have been introduced will have some impact. I understand that more are in planning. For the Ukraine, we have to hope that the aid and the sanctions are not much too little, much too late. On top of the populists and authoritarian leaders who have sprung up in so many countries, this invasion really calls for us all to do more to speak up for freedom and democracy. It is also a call to speed up our energy transitions. We need greater energy efficiency, energy savings and renewable energies to break the dependency on authoritarian regimes. Especially Europe but also the US, Japan, and S Korea have paid into the coffers of Russia (and other dictatorial regimes) with our large appetites for fossil fuels. So, in response, I turned down my heat even further (it was already off in most rooms), wrote an article, and have participated in panels talking about what is going on with Russia and why democracy is in serious danger if we are not prepared to ourselves pay a price to protect it. One way of doing this in the medium- to long-term is an energy transition. This will be important for climate change but also for the fight against authoritarianism. This is obviously an over simplification of a very complex situation, and I know that you all know this, but I somehow felt the need to say something…. Wishing for the best for the Ukraine…. Miranda Schreurs Professor for Environment and Climate Policy Technical University of Munich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/8D355445-F221-4F57-9DB5-EC0436B3DE67%40hfp.tum.de. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/CO1PR08MB7644817CFC79502AE3D6D4C2DD3F9%40CO1PR08MB7644.namprd08.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/CO1PR08MB7644817CFC79502AE3D6D4C2DD3F9%40CO1PR08MB7644.namprd08.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/92893269-F0D8-41B2-878A-C01CC1DDE276%40hfp.tum.de<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/92893269-F0D8-41B2-878A-C01CC1DDE276%40hfp.tum.de?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/1707d2487ac547d0b14ecc3dde76c4f4%40statsvet.su.se.
