Changing your mind on a controversial topic isn鈥檛 easy, especially when you have spent decades campaigning against your new position. Which is why the decision by the Union of Concerned 快猫短视频s (UCS) to is so important, and why the organisation deserves great credit for having the courage to take this step.
The UCS has broken with the anti-nuclear ideology that has been part of the advocacy group鈥檚 DNA since the 1960s. The UCS isn鈥檛 campaigning for nuclear plants to be built, however. It has simply recognised that coal and gas fired power stations are likely to replace decommissioned nuclear power plants. UCS president Ken Kimmel that the organisation is now calling for 鈥減roactive policy to preserve nuclear power from existing plants that are operating safely but are at risk of premature closures for economic reason鈥�.
The switch to coal and gas happened most clearly in Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel鈥檚 decision to phase out all nuclear power generation has led to an increased reliance on fossil fuels. The sight of this once climate-leading nation bulldozing ancient forests in order to expand open-cast coal mining serves as a warning. This is where hard line anti-nuclear ideology can lead in the real world.
Advertisement
The UCS鈥檚 begins by recognising that nuclear is the single largest source of low-carbon electricity in the US. Around the world, about 450 nuclear reactors supplied 10 per cent of global electricity last year, providing low-carbon power to 31 countries. Many US reactors are threatened with closure due to competition from cheap fracked gas and a power market that puts no value on low-carbon electricity.
The UCS recognises that if reactors close early and are replaced by fossil fuels, 鈥渆missions will rise 鈥� with serious consequences for the climate鈥�. This is of course merely stating the obvious. But it throws down a gauntlet to groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which are still campaigning to shutter low-carbon nuclear while simultaneously claiming that global warming is an existential threat to humankind. The UCS projects that if at-risk nuclear plants are closed early 鈥� as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth demand 鈥� then US power sector emissions could increase by 4 to 6 per cent.
Essential component
The truth is that nuclear power will be an essential component of any rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Renewables like wind and solar will hopefully provide the mainstay of future global electricity, but without nuclear, any low-carbon pathway is little short of delusional.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change鈥檚 recent report issued a stark warning: global emissions must fall by 45 per cent in just 12 years if a reasonable chance of a 1.5掳C pathway is to be retained. It would be immensely foolish to begin a colossal effort to decarbonise the world鈥檚 economy by getting rid of the largest existing source of low-carbon electricity. Nuclear鈥檚 problems of waste, cost and safety are trivial compared with the threat posed by unmitigated global warming, and are far from insoluble once political blockages are removed.
The UCS鈥檚 acceptance of nuclear power will come to be seen as a hugely significant moment in the battle against global warming, a moment when the environmentalists began to wake up to the sheer magnitude of the global low-carbon energy challenge.
The next step is for us all to put old battles behind us, and unite to demand the rapid phasing out of fossil fuels and their replacement with any and all low-carbon energy sources 鈥� including nuclear 鈥� before it is too late.
