EU must put Euratom where it belongs: in the nuclear graveyard. Proposed legislation to expand nuclear power must be rejected!
Nuclear safety, de Palacio style
Tomorrow (November 6) the European Commission is expected to
agree proposals for new nuclear legislation promoted by EU energy
commissioner Loyola de Palacio as "safety measures". De Palacio is
a strident pro-nuclear advocate.
Throwing good money after bad
A major part of the new package is a proposal to boost Euratom
nuclear loans from four to six billion Euros, a move which could
inject new cash into a dangerous and polluting nuclear industry.
Euratom's mandate is to promote nuclear power and to provide
support for the nuclear industry. The money would be better spent
in investing in renewable energy.
Fighting a positive trend
With this hefty loan extension on the table, commissioners must
think hard about how the Euros and atoms will connect. They should
remind themselves that Euratom money allocated to Eastern Europe
for safety is being used instead to expand the nuclear industry
there -- a clear violation of its intended purpose.
A number of EU member states including Germany and Austria have
already expressed concern about the loan extension, and its misuse
to expand the nuclear industry.
With the exception of Finland's highly controversial decision
this year to build a new nuclear reactor, no new reactors have been
commissioned in Western Europe since 1991. De Palacio justifies her
goal of expanded nuclear power as a solution to climate change. But
this is a ridiculous proposal that would simply increase the risks
of nuclear disasters, without addressing either problem.
Directives must be dissected
Also in the new proposed package are several other proposals for
nuclear directives. To date, few details of the nuclear survival
package have been made public. However, Greenpeace believes these
proposals, also promoted by de Palacio as safety measures, are
simply more "life support systems" for the European nuclear
industry.
EU commissioners must scrutinise every element of the package.
They must reject measures geared to prop up nuclear power, and
accept only those which solve the very real and dangerous problems
the nuclear industry presents to Europeans.
The key test for acceptability for these new directives is
whether they speed up closure of nuclear reactors, create more
stringent safety standards, and remove hidden subsidies that
sustain the uneconomic nuclear industry.
Radioactive relic
The Euratom treaty has remained largely unchanged since it was
signed in Rome in 1957. It is based on assumptions about nuclear
power that are nearly 50 years old and are simply incorrect. There
is little democratic control under Euratom. For example, the
European Parliament has next to no control over decisions made and
money given for nuclear power under Euratom. It has no place in a
21st century-sustainable Europe.
The original purpose of Euratom loans was to promote investment
in nuclear power but it is outrageous that they continue to do so
today when Europeans have overwhelmingly rejected this technology.
Unfortunately this is the case in Romania, where Euratom funds are
being used to complete the Canadian-designed Cernavoda 2
reactor.
If European taxpayers are to spend more money on energy, it must
go to clean, renewable energy instead of risky and uneconomic
nuclear projects.
"The Commission must come clean," said Greenpeace campaigner
Arjette Stevens. "Instead of planning for the revival of a dying
industry it should engage its considerable resources to research,
develop and promote a 100 percent clean renewable energy future for
an enlarged EU."