End the nuclear age

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster.

 

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.  (Briefing: Climate change - Nuclear not the answer.)

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his "Atoms for Peace" Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.

But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower's speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.

The latest updates

 

Bulgarians dismiss nuclear power by staying home

Blog entry by Jan Haverkamp | January 29, 2013 2 comments

It was clear from the start that the first referendum held in Bulgaria since the fall of communism was going to be a farce. Last Sunday, January 27, the farce reached its conclusion. Bulgarians expressed themselves on the issue of...

More nuclear cynicism: Fukushima’s decontamination scandal

Blog entry by Justin McKeating | January 28, 2013 1 comment

The unfolding radiation decontamination scandal in Japan’s Fukushima prefecture – the scene of the 2011 nuclear disaster – shows the nuclear industry at its cynical worst. As a nukes watcher for Greenpeace, I’ve seen a lot in my...

Nuclear history repeats in Niger

Blog entry by Justin McKeating | January 21, 2013

There are many uncertainties surrounding nuclear power – how much will it cost, what to do with its deadly waste and when will the next accident happen? These are just three uncertainties, but certainly three of the most glaring issues...

South Korea tramples human rights and ignores lessons from Fukushima

Blog entry by Pino Lee | December 10, 2012 9 comments

Today is the International Human Rights Day and what better way to mark it than by launching a court case against injustice in South Korea. With so many countries moving away from nuclear power in recent decades, and many more...

Nuclear costs soaring? Save money by saving the climate

Blog entry by Justin McKeating | December 5, 2012 18 comments

Surprise, surprise: the cost of building a new nuclear reactor at Flamanville in France has more than doubled to €8.5 billion from 3.3 billion ! But this is not really a surprise, is it? It is simply further evidence that the costs...

31 - 35 of 708 results.

Categories
Tags