

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A protestor gestures during an anti-nuclear demonstration on October 1, 2016 in Siouville-Hague, northwestern France. (Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)
As global scientists continue to warn of the urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, a quartet of European and U.S. experts on Tuesday made a comprehensive case for why nuclear power should be not be considered a solution to the climate crisis.
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction."
While the experts recognize in their joint statement that "the climate is running hot," they push back forcefully against those who argue nuclear could be a "partial response to the threat of global heating."
With four signatories--Paul Dorfman, former secretary of the U.K. government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters; Greg Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Bernard Laponche, former director general of France's energy management agency; and Wolfgang Renneberg, former head of the reactor safety, radiation protection, and nuclear waste at Germany's environmental ministry--the statement comes as a direct challenge to a nuclear industry trying to bill itself as a reliable part of the world's transition to a more sustainable energy system.
"As key experts who have worked on the frontline of the nuclear issue," their statement explains, "we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change."
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction," according to Dorfman, Jaczko, Laponche, and Renneberg. "The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm."
"Nuclear isn't cheap, but extremely costly," the statement adds. "Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design."
Given concerns about economic viability, nuclear accidents, and dangerous waste, the former regulatory leaders conclude that nuclear energy is not only "too costly and risky" but also "too unwieldy and complex" to be a feasible strategy to combat the climate emergency.
Progressive climate groups and other critics have long warned against nuclear energy, dubbing it a "false solution" like gas and carbon capture technology, but policymakers around the globe continue to pursue it. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are 439 operational nuclear reactors worldwide and another 52 under construction.
In the United States, lawmakers who support climate action are divided on the issue. When running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who now chairs the Senate Budget Committee--advocated for phasing out U.S. nuclear power.
A campaign spokesperson for Sanders told The Washington Post in 2019 that the senator "believes that solar, wind, geothermal power, and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives--and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit. Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima meltdown, we must ask why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry."
Despite such risks, nuclear provisions are included in the U.S. House-approved Build Back Better Act, a sweeping package that is backed by President Joe Biden but has stalled in the Senate due to a pair of corporate-backed right-wing Democrats.
Last year, hundreds of progressive groups urged top Democrats working on the package to "reject gas and other false climate solutions" such as nuclear power, asserting that "as we look to combat the climate emergency, it is crucial that we invest in solutions that support a just energy future."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As global scientists continue to warn of the urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, a quartet of European and U.S. experts on Tuesday made a comprehensive case for why nuclear power should be not be considered a solution to the climate crisis.
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction."
While the experts recognize in their joint statement that "the climate is running hot," they push back forcefully against those who argue nuclear could be a "partial response to the threat of global heating."
With four signatories--Paul Dorfman, former secretary of the U.K. government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters; Greg Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Bernard Laponche, former director general of France's energy management agency; and Wolfgang Renneberg, former head of the reactor safety, radiation protection, and nuclear waste at Germany's environmental ministry--the statement comes as a direct challenge to a nuclear industry trying to bill itself as a reliable part of the world's transition to a more sustainable energy system.
"As key experts who have worked on the frontline of the nuclear issue," their statement explains, "we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change."
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction," according to Dorfman, Jaczko, Laponche, and Renneberg. "The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm."
"Nuclear isn't cheap, but extremely costly," the statement adds. "Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design."
Given concerns about economic viability, nuclear accidents, and dangerous waste, the former regulatory leaders conclude that nuclear energy is not only "too costly and risky" but also "too unwieldy and complex" to be a feasible strategy to combat the climate emergency.
Progressive climate groups and other critics have long warned against nuclear energy, dubbing it a "false solution" like gas and carbon capture technology, but policymakers around the globe continue to pursue it. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are 439 operational nuclear reactors worldwide and another 52 under construction.
In the United States, lawmakers who support climate action are divided on the issue. When running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who now chairs the Senate Budget Committee--advocated for phasing out U.S. nuclear power.
A campaign spokesperson for Sanders told The Washington Post in 2019 that the senator "believes that solar, wind, geothermal power, and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives--and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit. Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima meltdown, we must ask why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry."
Despite such risks, nuclear provisions are included in the U.S. House-approved Build Back Better Act, a sweeping package that is backed by President Joe Biden but has stalled in the Senate due to a pair of corporate-backed right-wing Democrats.
Last year, hundreds of progressive groups urged top Democrats working on the package to "reject gas and other false climate solutions" such as nuclear power, asserting that "as we look to combat the climate emergency, it is crucial that we invest in solutions that support a just energy future."
As global scientists continue to warn of the urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, a quartet of European and U.S. experts on Tuesday made a comprehensive case for why nuclear power should be not be considered a solution to the climate crisis.
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction."
While the experts recognize in their joint statement that "the climate is running hot," they push back forcefully against those who argue nuclear could be a "partial response to the threat of global heating."
With four signatories--Paul Dorfman, former secretary of the U.K. government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters; Greg Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Bernard Laponche, former director general of France's energy management agency; and Wolfgang Renneberg, former head of the reactor safety, radiation protection, and nuclear waste at Germany's environmental ministry--the statement comes as a direct challenge to a nuclear industry trying to bill itself as a reliable part of the world's transition to a more sustainable energy system.
"As key experts who have worked on the frontline of the nuclear issue," their statement explains, "we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change."
"The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction," according to Dorfman, Jaczko, Laponche, and Renneberg. "The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm."
"Nuclear isn't cheap, but extremely costly," the statement adds. "Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design."
Given concerns about economic viability, nuclear accidents, and dangerous waste, the former regulatory leaders conclude that nuclear energy is not only "too costly and risky" but also "too unwieldy and complex" to be a feasible strategy to combat the climate emergency.
Progressive climate groups and other critics have long warned against nuclear energy, dubbing it a "false solution" like gas and carbon capture technology, but policymakers around the globe continue to pursue it. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are 439 operational nuclear reactors worldwide and another 52 under construction.
In the United States, lawmakers who support climate action are divided on the issue. When running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who now chairs the Senate Budget Committee--advocated for phasing out U.S. nuclear power.
A campaign spokesperson for Sanders told The Washington Post in 2019 that the senator "believes that solar, wind, geothermal power, and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives--and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit. Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima meltdown, we must ask why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry."
Despite such risks, nuclear provisions are included in the U.S. House-approved Build Back Better Act, a sweeping package that is backed by President Joe Biden but has stalled in the Senate due to a pair of corporate-backed right-wing Democrats.
Last year, hundreds of progressive groups urged top Democrats working on the package to "reject gas and other false climate solutions" such as nuclear power, asserting that "as we look to combat the climate emergency, it is crucial that we invest in solutions that support a just energy future."