500+ ORGANIZATIONS SIGN STATEMENT REJECTING NUCLEAR POWER AS A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CRISIS

12/17/07

500+ ORGANIZATIONS SIGN STATEMENT REJECTING NUCLEAR POWER AS A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CRISIS

NEWS FROM NIRS

More than 500 organizations from every corner of the U.S. and across the world have signed a statement explicitly rejecting the use of nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis.

The signers include many of the world’s largest and most influential environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth International, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Rainforest Action Network and many others, along with major peace groups like Code Pink, Peace Action, and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and hundreds of grassroots environmental, sustainable energy, religious, peace and other groups and businesses large and small from 46 states and 38 countries on six continents. 5900 individuals also have signed the statement, and more sign every day.

The statement is being released as the U.S. Congress prepares to consider billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactor construction based in large part on the incorrect assumption that nuclear power is a useful means of reducing our carbon emissions.

“We keep hearing from nuclear industry lobbyists that environmentalists are ‘re-examining’ nuclear power,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), which has been collecting the signatures. “That re-examination is long over, and it is clear that nuclear power is not helpful at addressing the climate crisis. Indeed, because of its high costs, long construction times, and its own considerable carbon footprint, its use would actually make matters much worse by diverting the resources necessary to take genuinely effective steps to end carbon emissions.”

“Moreover,” Mariotte added, “nuclear power has not successfully addressed any of the problems that caused the failure of its first generation: safety, radioactive waste disposal and the poor economics that led to soaring electric bills, bond defaults and utility bankruptcy. Add to that the newer problem of security, and nuclear power can’t win any rational argument over renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.”

“Our energy future ultimately must and will be carbon-free and nuclear-free. Fortunately, such a future is attainable, and in time to avert the worst of climate change. But the sooner we get there, the better,” said Mariotte. “It’s time for the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress to let go of their 20th century thinking and start taking meaningful steps to reduce both carbon and radioactive emissions and build a truly sustainable energy future. As we saw in Bali, the world is crying out for action.”

The statement, signed (as of December 17, 2007) by 515 organizations, states simply: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

The statement has been translated into French, Spanish, Russian and Ukrainian.

A list of U.S. organizational signers can be seen at http://www.nirs.org/petition2/ussigners121707.pdf. A list of international organizational signers is available at http://www.nirs.org/petition2/intsigners120607.pdf. Both lists are updated periodically.

The statement can be signed at: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

More information on why nuclear power is not a suitable choice for addressing the climate crisis can be found at http://www.nirs.org (Reports, Papers and Info You Can Use) and http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm

Fair Use Notice / Copyrights

Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ten Reasons To Say No To Nuclear Power

1. Climate change is underway. Renewable energy can be brought online faster, more cheaply and more safely than nuclear power. 2. Reactors are sitting-duck targets and are not even defended to the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. 3. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors routinely release radioactivity and use fossil fuels at every step from uranium mining to waste storage. 4. Building more reactors in the U.S. sends the wrong message abroad. Commercial nuclear technology inevitably leads to nuclear weapons capability. 5. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive dump is unsound and even if opened could not accommodate all wastes if generation continues. 6. Evacuation plans are unrealistic. Hurricane Katrina taught us that a mass evacuation during a serious radiological release would be a chaotic catastrophe. 7. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year to make 40 atomic bombs, an unacceptable risk. 8. New and old reactors are most prone to break down. U.S. reactors are old. New ones increase the risk of accident. 9. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission—mandated to watchdog the nuclear industry – chooses to protect industry profit over public health and safety. 10. The most defenseless are at the greatest risk—children, the elderly, minorities, the poor and animals—at every phase of the nuclear fuel chain. Ten Brighter Ideas 1. If every U.S. household installed one compact fluorescent light bulb, the power savings would equal the power produced by one nuclear reactor. 1=1! 2. Twenty compact fluorescents in every U.S. home could displace at least 25% of U.S. nuclear reactors. 3. Updated lighting, appliances, heating, cooling and other electrical systems can save more energy than all 103 U.S. reactors produce annually. 4. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses can save at least 20% of electricity use. 5. Turning off and unplugging electrical equipment not in use and line-drying clothes seem like small measures but can make a big difference. 6. Homeowners and renters alike can choose to buy green power instead of nuclear generated electricity. 7. Properly sealing and insulating your home can save 25%-40% of building heat loss. 8. Renewable energy sources can meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2025. 9. Shifting to locally-generated electricity avoids waste, reduces brownouts and blackouts, increases efficiency of service and creates jobs. 10. Every dollar spent on nuclear power instead of fossil fuels results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency. www.nirs.org 301.270.6477

"The No Nuker" - where No Nukes is good news !

12/17/07