NEW RUSH GAINS STEAM
(May 18, 2007) The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established to ensure effective follow-up of the Rio Earth Summit (1992). The Commission is responsible for reviewing progress in the implementation of international agreements on sustainable development. Energy plays a crucial role in the debates and negotiations.
(656.5801) WISE Russia - CSD-15, which took place in New York from April 29 till May 11, was to talk about the best way forward after the first Kyoto-period and to talk about setting clear goals and criteria for concrete energy-projects in the South.
As was the case in the past (see WISE News Communique #545, 23 March 2001) the nuclear industry and some countries have been again working hard to try to get the CSD accept nuclear power as a sustainable energy source, ready to been given credits under schemes as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in any post-Kyoto agreement.
The civil society -which traditionally has a relative strong position at the CSD talks- were alert and took action. Not only the environmental caucus but also women and youth platforms supported a strong statement against acceptance of nuclear energy.
Clear pro-nuclear language was taken out of a draft of the Chairman's Statement - but wording as "clean fossil fuel technologies" were replaced (where possible) with "modern energy technologies", which was taken by some nuclear critical countries as support for nukes. So they stood up and during so-called "high segment" sessions ministers from Austria and Latvia as well as NGO speakers made a strong statement against nuclear energy.
Mr. Josef Proell, Federal Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of the Republic of Austria stated "Austria is also of the firm view that nuclear energy does not represent a form of sustainable energy and should not be used to meet growing energy demands. Instead we should build upon increased use of renewable energies, energy efficiency and saving as well as alternative fuels to meet our climate change goals".
And the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Latvia said "speaking of the energy as one of critical angles of Sustainable Development, I would like to emphasize, that nuclear energy does not comply with the criteria of Sustainable Development because it is neither safe nor reliable. It also doesn't meet the criteria of economic viability as it is not affordable without public subsidies. I fully support the statement about the need to phase out harmful subsidies in order to reflect environmental impacts of various energy sources".
The CSD-15 session ended without any agreement on any of the issues… Delegates left even before the chairman was able to come up with a final attempt to draw conclusions. (see also related box on "Nuclear and Carbon pricing")
Source: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm and emails from Andrey Ozharovskiy, Ecodefense/WISE Russia
Contact: Andrey Ozharovskiy, Ecodefense/WISE Russia Email: idc.moscow@gmail.com
Nuclear & Carbon pricing
The recognition of the environmental and economic consequences of climate change has increased the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions. Through the Kyoto Protocol many countries have agreed to put a limit on their CO2 emissions. However, the Protocol effectively excludes nuclear energy as an operation from its flexible mechanisms that Annex I parties to the Convention can use to meet their reductions targets. Specifically, nuclear power is excluded from the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM, Article 12) and projects implemented jointly (Article 6). Nuclear power was not directly excluded from emissions trading schemes. In order to meet this target signatories have had to put in place mechanisms to reduce emissions in particularly from the power sector. In Europe this has resulted in the introduction of an Emissions Trading System (ETS) which puts a ceiling on the amount of CO2 fixed sources can emit and has resulted in the establishment of a carbon market, as CO2 producers trade their emissions permits.
Over the last two years, since the establishment of the European carbon market, the price has fluctuated in the range of Euro 2-30/tonne carbon, due to changes in energy prices, actual or anticipated availability of emissions permits and market speculations.
Nuclear power does not receive emissions permits within the framework of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (unlike existing fossil fuel electricity generators) as it does not produce CO2 during electricity generation. However, despite the fact that during the first round of the ETS there was considerable over-allocation of emissions permits and these were largely given for free to the electricity utilities, the establishment of the scheme has resulted in the general increase in electricity prices. As a result it has been said that the main economic winners of the current scheme have been the coal and nuclear utilities.
Many see the introduction of a long term carbon price as an important future issue for the nuclear industry and absolutely necessary for the construction of nuclear reactors. The chief executive of EdF has stated 'To make a commitment of billions of pounds to a project with a time-scale of half a century, investors above all need predictability about price. They must know the value society will place on carbon reduction not just tomorrow, but 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now." This would require a significant change in the current emissions trading schemes.
Not only does there need to be a long term guarantee for the price of carbon, but, according to some, also a price which is significantly above the current market price. The MIT study calculated that 'With carbon taxes in the $50/tC range, nuclear is not economical under the base case assumptions '. The study went on to assess that nuclear will only break even under its base case assumptions, when carbon prices are in excess of S100/tC (Euro 73/tC).
Greenpeace: "The economics of nuclear power", April 2007