Here is a note i wrote about five years ago (on the eve of the Indo-US nuclear deal), expressing my concerns with the agreement from the point of view of environmental justice, rights and safety.
The note was widely circulated at that time. i would like to point out that these particular concerns are not, in any way intended to support or oppose any country or countries. These would be my concerns irrespective of which countries were involved.
In view of the current global financial situation and emerging trends, i think it is important for policy planners to be reminded of the kind of concerns that the note raises.
My main concerns today:
Safety and maintenance of all civil nuclear facilities against the backdrop of the economic slowdown/shutdown;
Recommend a move away from the use of nuclear energy for civil purposes;
Recommend sincere moves towards global nuclear disarmament.
This is the note that i wrote and circulated some years ago:
Nuclear Deal Not
Worth It: Too Many Risks
By V. Shruti Devi
(lawyer and
independent tribal rights activist)
The text of the Agreement for
Cooperation Between the Government of India and the Government of the United
States of America Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy contains
points of grave concern.
The ‘scope of cooperation’ under
which the ‘agreed text’ states that “Each party shall implement this
Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws,
regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes” and the implication of this in the context of the
impacts of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy
Cooperation Act of 2006 have emerged as a focal point of the debate.
While the Hyde Act must continue
to be the focus of debate, additional concerns also need to be addressed. There
is a body of US as well as Indian Environmental Legislation that must be
analyzed to determine the kinds of checks and balances that would finally play
out and decide how useful or dangerous the ‘123 Agreement’ would actually be
for the people of India.
This is particularly relevant
since the opening lines of the agreement state that the countries have agreed
upon the text, “RECOGNIZING the significance of civilian nuclear energy for
meeting growing global energy demands in a cleaner and more efficient manner”.
This is worded as though nuclear energy is undeniably and undoubtedly cleaner
and more efficient. However, it is abundantly clear that such a statement is
far from acceptable to an entire spectrum of experts and citizens of both
nations, and of the international community.
A major argument being put forward in favour of the
Indo-US 123 Agreement is that India
should develop its sources of nuclear energy for peaceful uses because nuclear
energy is cleaner and more efficient.
However, it can be strongly argued that
nuclear energy falls short of both these objectives.
There are a number of indicators
that could determine what constitutes ‘clean’ and what constitutes ‘efficient’.
It must be realized that the very understanding of which technology counts as
clean and efficient, and which does not, must include relevant socio-political
factors, and cannot be restricted only to a purely scientific evaluation of
technology.
Thus, one must ask the question:
Clean and efficient for whom, and at what cost?
Let us first deal with the
question of who requires this additional source of power, and whether or not
obtaining it is critical to meeting any of the Constitutional obligations of
the Indian State
In connection with power
requirements in general, to quote the Government of India’s own words, India’s
Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate change (UNFCCC) says, “With rising incomes, households at all socioeconomic levels are
increasingly using energy using devices such as electric bulbs, fans,
televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, air-coolers, air-conditioners,
water heaters, scooters and cars.” The mischief of equating the user of a single electric bulb
with excessive users of energy is evident. This attitude of camouflaging the
insatiable needs of a handful of energy gluttons with the modest energy
requirements of the poor people in rural as well as urban India pervades
the entire discourse on power generation today.
The document further states that “increased temperatures would
increase space-cooling requirements” and that “about 1.5 per cent additional power
generation capacity would be required for enhanced space cooling requirements
as a result of increase in temperature”. It is astonishing that the
Government finds it acceptable to plan to generate more power in order to
enable people to run air-conditioners in a projected scenario where those who
don’t have access to such facilities will be subjected to higher temperatures,
and will often be the victims of various impacts of power generation projects.
The idea of incurring the social and environmental costs
and risks related to nuclear power generation in order to cater to energy
demands of the kind described above sounds dubious, to say the least.
It is close to impossible to
justify the costs and risks that come with nuclear power generation. When lobbies attempt to promote the use of
nuclear power for peaceful purposes, they usually justify its green credentials
by computing a variety of emissions of a running facility. However, it is not
reasonable to compute only aspects of ‘pollution’ as environmental hazards or
costs.
Issues such as land utilization,
hazards of mining radioactive ores, health of the ecology, and the
sky-rocketing ecological hazards connected to the disposal of nuclear waste
cannot be wished away while computing the green credentials of nuclear energy.
Furthermore, the environmental damage caused by the process of the production
of all the machinery and infrastructure for a nuclear power plant should also
be taken into account.
When nuclear power facilities are
sited near populated areas, they endanger lakhs of people.
And when they are sited in low
population density areas, they put in peril, the most fragile tribal cultures,
lifestyles and ecosystems. There is a clear and present danger to our people.
The tribal people of India have been
victims of unevenly-tilted Environment Impact Assessment procedures as per the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 whereby tribal people and other small
farmers have been divested of their lands for the purpose of mining. This
legislation in its present form, including certain Rules and Notifications,
along with the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (which, among other things, deals with
the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board), when seen in the context of generation of
nuclear power for peaceful purposes, is still perceived as a threat to those
who, ironically, use a meager amount of the power in the Country today.
It must be realized that any form
of power generation, including nuclear, necessarily involves the utilization of
natural resources. Today, the Socialist fabric of our Nation as envisaged by
the Constitution is under threat since natural resources, which should be the
property of the state, are being employed for private profit and exclusive gain
at the peril of the right to life of weak communities.
In addition to environmental concerns
related to the production of nuclear energy and the disposal of nuclear and
other waste generated, the risks associated with earthquakes, tornadoes,
tsunamis, accidents and also from possible terrorist attacks cannot be ignored.
The fallout of any of these occurrences would lead to catastrophic consequences
for human health, ecosystems and the environment.
Other forms of power generation
do not bring with them, the horrors and risk of radiation. The waste of power
and inefficiencies in distribution need to be curtailed and checked, this would
make a concrete difference to power supply. Alternatives such as solar energy
are said to have immense possibilities. The appropriate political will is
required to fuel appropriate technologies.
The question of the danger of
using nuclear power as a source of energy is hotly debated in democracies
across the world.
In the UK, a briefing paper
published by the Oxford Research Group in July 2007 (and with a foreword by the
Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy spokesperson) concludes that “...if a
decision to go with nuclear power is taken then the UK will implement a flawed
and dangerously counter-productive energy policy…”
The American newspaper, The
Christian Science Mirror, refers to the research of Dr. U. Fritsche and says
that “Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to
it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant
and operating it are included.”
According to Nuclear Monitor, the
bi-weekly newsletter of World Information Service on Energy (WISE) Amsterdam, “The
myth that nuclear power provides a solution to climate change is based on the
assumption that the generation of electricity by nuclear fission does not lead
to greenhouse gas emissions”.
A paper published by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), entitled Ecological
Hazards from Nuclear Power Plants, states that “It is apparent that the
nuclear industry is creating a major challenge to the environment in the United
States…Even if fast breeder reactors prove safe enough for general use, the
thermal efficiency would be only slightly improved over the present reactors…It
is a dangerous game to play, trading potential death and mutation for minor
immediate economic gain”.
Similar concerns as the ones just
described currently resonate across the globe and in India .
Although the implications of the
‘agreed text’ of the “123 Agreement” might not have been comprehended yet by
those who would be the most impacted, that is, innocent citizens, it is just a
matter of time before our vibrant democracy relays the information to every
nook and corner of our Country.
There is no doubt that such an
agreement would have a destructive impact on India ’s foreign policy. The risks
that the agreement intends to take are too many and frankly, just too foolish.
It is unacceptable to us, the Citizens of India, to allow our Country to
blunder into a legal agreement based on trust with nations that have absolutely
no regard for the concept of nuclear disarmament.
Urgent action by all concerned
citizens within all political parties to put a halt to the undermining of
Indian democracy is called for immediately.
V. Shruti Devi
No comments:
Post a Comment