Opinion - Interviews   

“Nuclear power is simply not necessary”

— Photo: Sushanta Patronobish

Gavin Edwards: “Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power that we need.”

We have been sounding the alarm bells for almost 20 years now, driving the message home that climate change and global warming is a serious issue that demands global action and is the single biggest threat to humankind. We have to say, though, that it has been only in the last one year the world has started to take the issue much, much more seriously and what we see now is a shift towards the solutions to climate change in global discourse. But I fear that it will take another 20 years of discussions on the issue and we simply do not have 20 years left to tackle climate change. So our message is clear: we have been saying let us not spend the next few years debating how to tackle the problems; the solutions are here, they are ready-made. It is time for our governments to get much, much serious about tackling climate change.

We have offices in 42 countries. Governments generally agree with us that climate change is a problem and demands action, but disagree what the solutions are, and how bold an action needs to be taken. Most governments readily admit that something has to be done but what we think needs to be done is based on our assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which calls for an 80 reduction in emissions from industrialised countries by 2050, a 30 per cent reduction by 2020.

This is a very, very big change in life-styles, in the way we use and produce our energy. Some radical shifts have to be made and we do not think that governments yet realise or understand or are willing to make the shifts needed. But that can change under public pressure in the coming years.

There are distinctions. In the United States — the world’s biggest per capita emitter — we have the White House right now that is sending some very mixed signals on climate change and refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Yet, there have been some really hopeful signs in what some of the northeast states and California are doing. I think we have to wait till after the 2008 elections before we see some real change in the U.S. I think it is heading in the right direction — a little bit slowly, a little bit late, but I think it is possible.

China is another example — perhaps the second biggest emitter in the world. They are also taking steps as well, putting specific programmes in place, to increase their renewable energy up to 15 per cent by 2020 — setting targets for energy efficiency to ensure economic efficiency as well. The government there has thus begun taking steps in moving in the right direction.

One of the greatest challenges is how governments, in negative moments, can play a little bit of a blame game. That is a recipe for disaster. What we are advocating to any government is you have to take up leadership. As for India, there are people we speak to who have a very black-and-white view of the situation. ‘Do we have development or do we have to take more action on climate change?’ If you scratch below the surface you can have development and you can have action against climate change as well. So part of our frustration is when the debate happens on the simplistic level on whether you can have one or the other. This is where we need to break the deadlock.

A key phrase in the United Nations’ framework on climate change agreed back in 1992 is common but differentiated responsibility. The degree to which the different countries have to act depends on the development of that country. Non-governmental organisations have really focussed on industrialised countries that have to do the lion’s share of tackling climate change — that is clear. But what is also clear is that developing countries like India, China constantly keep on developing with the business-as-usual old-style development approach. They could be repeating the same mistakes the West has made in the past few decades. And if India, China and other countries continue to make those mistakes, then regardless of what the West is doing to tackle climate change it will be impossible.

Everyone will have to take some action on climate change. For India, for example, we estimate that emissions can grow; we fully recognise economic growth is absolutely essential and we estimate that a 20 per cent emission growth is possible but which needs to start dipping after that.

If India builds coal-powered power stations in the next 10 years, it makes it impossible to meet the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If it makes a different choice, invests in energy efficiency through a range of measures then we can see economic prosperity but not at the expense of climate. So in a sense India is at a crossroads. If it makes the right choices, India can do its share even though it is not a lion’s share. But India can make a significant contribution, and without that contribution the world could be in serious trouble.

They may contribute to a much smaller degree than coal-powered plants — that is for sure. But there are numerous other problems associated with nuclear power that are still yet to be solved. We still don’t have a solution for nuclear waste. Greenpeace is firmly against nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation as well. The economics of nuclear power never adds up. Nuclear industries time and time again require subsidies from government in order to operate. They also require subsidies from future generations in terms of the nuclear waste that will be created as well.

But our main argument against nuclear power is that it is simply not necessary. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power around the world that we need. We are at a cross-roads right now when we can shift to a radically different economic development model — one without coal-fire power, one without nuclear power.

We are looking at less than one degree Celsius rise in temperature so far. Even if we change course today and put ourselves on a different energy pathway, we are looking at a warming of about 1.7 to 1.9 degrees Celsius average globally by the late century. Now this might not sound like a lot. The IPCC has set 2 degree Celsius as the absolute maximum after which we go from a serious impact on climate change to some catastrophic impact on climate change.

Even with a two degree Celsius, we are looking at 20 to 30 per cent of all species globally being pushed to high risks of extinction. Once we move over a two degrees Celsius rise, we are looking at refugees — people heavily impacted by climate change shifting from one location to the next. Christian Aid, an NGO, has estimated that one billion people could be affected and would have to shift one way or another. If we look at the economics of climate change, between 5 and 20 per cent of GDP could be affected by the late century.

It has only been in the last one year when a series of events have happened to shake the world. The seminal moment was when Sir Nicholas Stern launched his report last year. The IPCC has launched three critical reports — a fairly conservative look taking a range of sides and coming up with a consensus — that have been more unequivocal than ever that climate change is a problem that has had a big impact on world governments. And then the third phenomenon we can attribute is the work Al Gore has done for more than a decade, advocating the problems of global warming though it has been only in the past year that it has reached a popular audience and that has really raised alarm bells and woken people up to the issues.

We are looking at the commonalities, but different agencies work often with differences in approach. In India, we see a much lower awareness when it comes to climate change right now. If we look at a recent poll by BBC World on awareness around the world, India was at the bottom of the list. Only 47 per cent believed that climate change was a human-induced problem, whereas if you look at the U.S., even China, there is a higher rating of awareness.

Critical, later this year, will be a U.N. meeting at Bali in Indonesia where world governments will get together and hope to inject some new life into a global agreement on climate change and look at renewing and extending the Kyoto protocol in the second commitment period. Greenpeace offices and campaigners around the world will be lobbying their national governments before the meeting on a common set of values and a mandate we are looking for. If we can get an outcome in Bali that says by 2009, world governments will have to agree on a second commitment on the Kyoto protocol, there have to be stronger and deeper cuts in emission, that industrialised nations have to take greater action but developing countries can also set their own targets, then we can judge that to be a success.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Will she, won’t she?
Fine-tuning policy on invisibles
Preventing Iran from going the Iraq way
Corrections and clarifications
Face of terror
Crisis defused
Well deserved
“Nuclear power is simply not necessary”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu