Hundreds of groups for climate action reject nuclear power a

[Oscar]

Hundreds of groups for climate action reject nuclear power at Brussels Summit

[ https://preview.mailerlite.com/s3b2k9l7 ... 2057/b8d2/ ]

For Immediate Release - March 21, 2024

(Montreal) Today, more than 600 civil society groups across the globe working on climate action, including 130 from Canada, launched a declaration in Brussels, Belgium, stating that nuclear power expansion is not a solution to the climate crisis.

The groups declare: "We are living in a climate emergency. Time is precious, and too many governments are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales. What we demand is a just transition towards a safe, renewable and affordable energy system that secures jobs and protects life on our planet.”

The groups made their declaration public today at the pro-nuclear Summit in Brussels where countries are meeting to bolster the industry's claim that investing in new nuclear plants must be a priority to save the climate. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose principle mandate is to promote nuclear expansion, is co-hosting the event, along with Belgium, which ironically passed a law in 2003 –still on the books – to phase out nuclear power completely.

The declaration was drafted by Climate Action Network Europe. It is endorsed by Climate Action Network Canada, an umbrella organization representing more than 150 groups in this country. Additional Canadian signatories comprise a wide spectrum of coalitions and individual groups in rural and urban regions across Canada including:

David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal)

Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee (Slave Lake, Alberta)

Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)

Concerned Citizens Committee (Manitoba)

Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation (Heron Bay, Ontario)

Northwatch (North Bay, Ontario)

Ontario Clean Air Alliance (Toronto, Ontario)

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (Ottawa, Ontario)

Kebaowek First Nation (Kebaowek, Québec)

Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Montréal, Québec)

Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (Québec)

Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (Qonaskamkuk, NB)

Conservation Council of New Brunswick (Fredericton, NB)

Council of Canadians Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island)

Nova Scotia Voice of Women for Peace (Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc. (Goose Bay, Labrador)

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE, Canada)

The declaration states that nuclear power is too slow, too costly, and too dangerous to be an effective strategy for climate action. Nuclear plants cost three times more than renewables to build and are at least four times slower to deploy. Energy efficiency measures are cheaper and faster than any supply option. Rather than nuclear power, a sensible climate strategy would prioritize approaches that are cheaper, faster, safer and sustainable, while creating far more jobs.

The global nuclear power industry has been in steep decline for the last quarter century. Cost overruns and lengthy delays have plagued the industry, whose contribution to global electricity supply has fallen from 17.5 percent in 1997 to only 9.2 percent today. Consequently, the nuclear industry has organized itself to grab as much money as it can from funds earmarked by governments to fight climate change.

At last year’s Climate Conference, COP-28, the official resolution to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency worldwide by 2030 was enthusiastically adopted by all parties, while a prepared statement sponsored mainly by nuclear vendors, to triple nuclear power by 2050 was supported by only a small minority.

In 2020, a broad network of Canadian civil society, public interest, Indigenous and religious groups declared that small nuclear reactors are “a Dirty Dangerous Distraction from real climate action”. Now that prophetic observation is being endorsed by groups globally.

- 30 -

For more information contact:

Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
ccnr@web.ca 514-839-7214


“Nuclear power is a few decades of electricity followed by a 10 million year headache. No thanks!”
Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development - New Brunswick
susan.odonnell@crednb.ca 506-261-1727

“Dirty and non-renewable energy sources including nuclear and fossil fuels are not required in future because renewable energy with storage is ready now."
Jean-Pierre Finet, Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie
jpierre.finet@gmail.com 514-515-1957

“Nuclear energy is an unnecessary burden considering so many cleaner, cheaper, faster and safer alternatives. We got rid of it in Quebec In 2012 and we intend to keep it that way.”
Angela Bischoff, Ontario Clean Air Alliance
angela@cleanairalliance.org 416-260-2080 ext. 1

“Renewables are do-able. Nuclear is a dirty dangerous distraction from real climate action.”

CCNR • RSN http://www.ccnr.org (514) 489 5118 ccnr@web.ca

[Oscar]

Myth buster: Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction

[ https://caneurope.org/myth-buster-nuclear-energy/ ]

March 19, 2024

Introduction

More than three-quarters of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions stem from our energy consumption, therefore it is vital to stop burning fossil fuels to avert a climate catastrophe. Fortunately, quick, safe, and proven solutions are available and can be rolled out today: Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest source of energy and just within the past year, they grew so fast that newly installed renewables managed to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 19% while saving consumers an estimated €50bn on their energy bills.

Yet, there is a strong lobby that hopes to rival the success of renewables: the nuclear industry, fighting for influence and watering down EU climate legislation when it suits their own interests. This development is creating significant tension with proponents of a fully renewable energy system and marks a regressive step in efforts towards a sustainable and just energy transition. While nuclear champions claim that nuclear energy can work hand-in-hand with renewables, it is becoming increasingly clear that nuclear power acts as a significant hurdle to the roll-out of renewables and fossil fuel phase-out. . . . .

. . . .

Conclusions

The climate movement has rightly focused its efforts on achieving a fast, fair and full phase out of fossil fuels with remarkable successes, although major fights are still ahead of us. Renewable energy has seen massive growth rates in many European countries and this development is a win for everyone: People as they benefit from lower energy prices, communities where they are part of benefit sharing schemes and the climate due to much reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We therefore conclude and demand:

- Nuclear energy is undermining renewables due to the aforementioned issues and must not be portrayed as an alternative or partner for renewables in the energy transition.
- New nuclear energy in Europe is too slow, and too expensive to meaningfully contribute to the decarbonisation of the energy system by 2040. This pathway is a distraction which only delays fossil fuel phase-out and renewables uptake.
- Small Modular Reactors are an unproven technology and, like conventional nuclear reactor designs, are unable to contribute meaningfully to decarbonisation. If developed, these units would increase the price for electricity, the levels of radioactive waste and risk the proliferation of nuclear materials.
- CAN Europe calls for a 100% renewable energy system by 2040, and therefore a managed phase-out and decommissioning of Europe’s existing nuclear fleet is required by 2040 at the latest to ensure a safe and sustainable future.
- Prolongation must not divert public funds away from renewables and energy efficiency solutions and hinder the integration of renewables in the surrounding area. The prolongation of existing nuclear reactors risks safety as old units are pushed well beyond their original foreseen lifespans.
- Every euro invested in nuclear is a euro not invested in renewables and energy efficiency. For this reason, public finance should remain inaccessible to nuclear, as it should be prioritised on cost-effective, sustainable solutions. This includes the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework and EU funds such as the Just Transition Fund, Modernisation Fund, Innovation Fund, InvestEU, etc, and investments from the European Investment Bank.
- Renewable energy targets remain an essential tool for the European energy transition, and must be defended against any attempts to water them down through the inclusion of nuclear power. A so-called “low-carbon” directive with “low-carbon” targets would decimate the rate of renewable energy integration, which is already off track, and prevent the EU from aligning with Paris-agreement emissions reduction. Additionally, this opens the backdoor for other false solutions like fossil gas and carbon-capture and storage (CCS).
- Nuclear power and fossil gas should be excluded from the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities.

Download the Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction mythbuster in PDF here:
[ chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcaneurope.org%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F03%2FNuclear-energy-mythbusting-CAN-Europe.pdf&clen=387662&chunk=true ]

Published on 19/03/2024