U.S. Public Interest Research
Group * Public Citizen * Sierra Club * Greenpeace * Nuclear Information and
Resource Service * Friends of the Earth
News Release
For Immediate
Release:
Contact: Erica Hartman, Public Citizen (202) 454-5174
Nearly 300 Groups Reject Nuclear Energy
as a Global Warming Solution
Groups Urge Congress to Choose Clean
Energy Path, Not Embrace Dangerous and Dirty Nuclear Power
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In response to
an industry campaign touting new nuclear reactors as a solution to global
warming, nearly 300 international, national, regional and local environmental,
consumer, and safe energy groups reiterated their substantial concerns today
over nuclear energy and rejected the argument that nuclear power can solve
global warming. Rather, the groups urged a focus on clean and renewable
sources of energy and energy efficiency and conservation.
With votes on global warming
amendments anticipated in the next week during Senate consideration of the
energy bill, representatives of several of the groups called on Congress to
reject legislation that subsidized nuclear power plants as part of reducing
global warming pollution.
“Global warming is the most
serious environmental problem facing us today and we should aggressively
increase energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce carbon dioxide
pollution,” said Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director for the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group. “We’re now one of nearly 300 public interest
groups that say nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive and should not be
part of a global warming solution,” she added.
Nuclear power has long been viewed
as uneconomical and unsafe, especially after the
In an environmental statement on
nuclear energy and global warming, the groups outlined five key reasons why
nuclear energy should not be part of a solution to global warming stating that
nuclear energy is unnecessary, too expensive, too dangerous, too polluting and
that using nuclear power to address global warming would exacerbate the
problems posed by the technology. “We can meet our future electricity needs
and reduce global warming pollution without increasing our reliance on nuclear
energy,” the groups wrote. The groups noted that 19 states have passed
renewable electricity standards requiring an increasing percentage of energy to
be generated by renewable energy sources, and that several studies have shown
that clean energy solutions can dramatically reduce global warming
pollution.
Recently, nuclear energy
proponents have championed nuclear power as a means to tempering climate
change. But the groups today dispelled the argument that nuclear power could be
used as a solution to reduce global warming. In fact, a recent MIT study
noted that using nuclear power to have any significant effect on climate change
would require building at least 1,000 new reactors worldwide.
“Addressing climate change is too
important to leave to the failed nuclear industry,” said Michael Mariotte,
Executive Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “Throwing a few
billion dollars of taxpayer money at the nuclear industry might make some
utility executives happy, but would do virtually nothing to reduce carbon
emissions. In fact, by diverting limited resources that should be used for
sustainable technologies, subsidizing nuclear power would be
counterproductive.”
“This would exacerbate all of the
problems of the technology: more terrorist targets, more cost (potentially
trillions of dollars), less safety, need for a new Yucca Mountain‑sized
waste site every 4 or 5 years, more proliferation of nuclear materials and
technologies, dozens of new uranium enrichment plants, and even then, a severe
shortage of uranium even within this century‑‑while displacing the
resources needed to ensure a real solution to the climate change issue,” the
groups said.
So far, Congress has been leaning
toward supporting a revived nuclear future. The pending Senate energy
bill is likely to include many nuclear-friendly provisions designed to
encourage energy companies to build new reactors. Already, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed its version of energy legislation in April, including
$6.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks, as well as other
incentives. The Senate version of the energy bill includes $4.3 billion
in subsidies; the tax provisions, which are likely to include billions in tax
breaks for the nuclear industry, have not been completed yet.
“Instead of relapsing back into
our failed nuclear experiment, let’s embrace a trend towards actual clean and
safe energy,” said Wenonah Hauter, Director of Public Citizen’s energy program.
“Nuclear power is fatally flawed and we cannot overcome all of its obstacles.
It’s time to support renewable energy technologies because they already exist
and have great potential and provide a real opportunity to keep our planet
healthy for future generations.”
##
For more information on the
downsides and dangers of nuclear power, visit www.citizen.org/cmep/fatalflaws.
For more on the energy bill, visit ww.stopenergybill.org. To read the
letter to Congress, go to http://www.citizen.org/documents/GroupNuclearStmt.pdf
or http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nuclearglobalwarmingstatement6162005.pdf.
(Note: NC WARN and
several other NC groups signed the letter. See the list per
link above.)