idebate environment

7/27/2019 Idebate Environment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/idebate-environment 1/15

Is the economic development of developing countries more important than

protecting the environment?

The issue of economic growth versus environmental conservation can also be seen asdeveloped countries vs developing ones. Industrial countries such as the USA and

Germany have depended upon polluting industries for their wealth. Now they fearthat uncontrolled economic development in the Third World will lead to environmentaldisaster. They point out that massive clearing of tropical rainforest for farmingthreatens biodiversity and may affect the global climate. At the same time relyingupon heavy industry adds more pollution to the air soil and water sources while aricher population demands more energy often produced from burning dirty fossilfuels such as coal. !eveloping countries such as "hina and #ra$il point out that theymust ma%e industrialisation and economic development a priority because they have tosupport their growing populations. !eveloping countries must address current

problems& they cannot afford to worry about the distant future. They also point outthat as 'irst World countries are most to blame for current environmental damage itis unfair to demand that developing nations limit their own growth to solve theseproblems.

Pro Con

Ta%ing care of millions of people who arestarving is more important than savingnatural resources most of which arerenewable anyway. We cannot e(pectdeveloping nations to share the greenconcerns of developed countries whenthey are faced with dire poverty and aconstant battle for survival.

We have already wasted and destroyedvast amounts of natural resources and inso doing have put earth at ris%. We mustpreserve the earth for our children andgrandchildren. In any case poverty andenvironmental damage are often lin%ed.!estroying the rainforest gives nativepeoples nowhere to go e(cept urbanslums. )olluted water can lead to cropfailures. "limate change will turn fertilefields into desert and flood coastal areaswhere hundreds of millions live.!eveloping countries have to choosesustainable development if they want afuture for their people.

The industrialised world*s emphasis ongreen issues holds bac% developingcountries. #ecause this is seen asinterference in their affairs it alsocontributes to a greater divide between

the 'irst and Third worlds. +any alsobelieve it is a deliberate attempt to stoppossible economic competitors. After all

No one wants to stop economic progressthat could give millions better lives. #utwe must insist on sustainabledevelopment that combinesenvironmental care social ,ustice and

economic growth. -arth cannot supportunrestricted growth. "ompanies indeveloped countries already have higher



the USA and -U already put high tariffsimport ta(es/ on products made cheaplyin developing countries e.g. cannedtomatoes shoes/ which could be sold inAmerica or -urope. #y limiting the

development of profitable but pollutingindustries li%e steel or oil refineries weare forcing nations to remain economicallybac%ward.

costs of production because of rules toprotect the environment. It is unfair ifthey then see their prices undercut bygoods produced cheaply in developingcountries at the cost of great pollution.

-conomic development is vital for meetingthe basic needs of the growingpopulations of developing countries. If wedo not allow them to industrialise thesenations will have to bring in measures to

limit population growth ,ust to preservevital resources such as water.

Unchec%ed population growth has anegative impact on any nation as well ason the whole planet. #oth the povertyand the environmental problems of sub0Saharan Africa are largely the result of

rapid population growth putting pressureon limited resources. At the same time"hina has become wealthy while followinga 1one0child2 per couple policy. 3imitingpopulation growth will result in a higherstandard of living and will preserve theenvironment.

4bviously the world would be better if allnations stuc% to strict environmentalrules. The reality is that for many nationssuch rules are not in their interests. 'ore(ample closing "hina*s huge "apital Ironand Steelwor%s a ma,or source ofpollution would cost 56 666 ,obs. Thee7ual application of strict environmentalpolicies would create huge barriers toeconomic progress at a ris% to politicalstability.

Nations are losing more from pollutionthan they are gaining fromindustrialisation. "hina is a perfecte(ample. Twenty years of uncontrolledeconomic development have createdserious chronic air and water pollution.This has increased health problems andresulted in annual losses to farmers ofcrops worth billions of dollars. Souncontrolled growth is not only bad forthe environment it is also ma%es noeconomic sense.

8apid industrialisation does not have toput more pressure on the environment.Scientific advances have made industriesmuch less polluting. And developingcountries can learn from theenvironmental mista%es of the developedworld*s industrial revolution and from

more recent disasters in communistcountries such as "hina and the USS8.'or e(ample efficient new steelwor%s use

Scientific progress has made people tooconfident in their abilities to controltheir environment. In ,ust half a centurythe world*s nuclear industry has had atleast three serious accidents9 WindscaleU: ;<=>/ Three +ile Island USA;<></ and "hernobyl USS8 ;<?@/. In

addition the nuclear power industry stillcannot store its waste safely. ydro0power sounds great but damming rivers is



much less water raw materials and powerwhile producing much less pollution thantraditional factories. And nucleargenerating plants can provide more energythan coal while contributing far less to

global warming. We are also e(ploringalternative renewable types of energysuch as solar wind and hydro0power.

itself damaging to the environment. Italso forces huge numbers of people offtheir land B as in "hina*s C Gorgespro,ect.

It is hypocritical two0faced and unfair/for rich developed countries to demandthat poorer nations ma%e conservationtheir priority. After all they became richin the first place by destroying theirenvironment in the industrial revolution.

Now that they have cut down their owntrees polluted their water sources andpoured billions of tons of carbon into theair they are in no position to tell othersto behave differently. In any case ascountries become richer they becomemore concerned about the environmentand can afford to do something about it.'or developing countries conservation cantherefore wait until they are richer.

3oo%ing after our fragile world has to bea partnership. "limate change will affectthe whole planet not ,ust the developedworld. In fact it is li%ely to haveparticularly terrible effects ondeveloping countries as sea levels rise

deserts advance and natural disastersbecome more common. It is no use-urope trying to cut its emissions intothe atmosphere if unchec%ed growth in"hina and India leads to much greateroverall pollution. Instead developedcountries need to transfer greenertechnologies to the developing worldpaying for environmental protection andma%ing sustainability a condition for aid.

The 1Green 8evolution2 has doubled thesi$e of grain harvests. Thus cutting downmore forests to provide more space forcrops is no longer necessary. We now havethe %nowledge to feed the world*sincreasing population without harming theenvironment. Genetically modified cropscan also benefit the developing world byre7uiring much less water fertiliser orpesticide use while giving better yields.This is another e(ample of economicdevelopment leading to environmentalbenefits.

The Green 8evolution is threatening thebiodiversity of the Third World byreplacing native seeds with hybrids. Wedo not %now what the long0termenvironmental or economic conse7uenceswill be. We do %now that in the short runsuch hybrid crops can causeenvironmental problems by crowding outnative plants and the wildlife which relieson them. The farmer growing hybridcrops must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved to plantthe following year*s crops. 'armers usinghybrid seeds in what was the richestpart of India went ban%rupt. As a resultfertile lands lay idle and unploughed

resulting in droughts and desertification.



Although still a controversial subject, there is a growing consensus that global

climate changes are being caused by environmental pollution, especially by

greenhouse gases. Do we need to tae more urgent action to halt this trend?

Since the ;<?6s there has been a growing body of evidence to suggest that

industrialisation is having an effect on the climate of the planet. As concern hasgrown a number of international bodies have been set up to research the issue andmore recently a series of treaties have been established to help curb the emission ofso0called Dgreenhouse gasesD. The most important of these was the ;<<> :yoto)rotocol see below for a lin% to the full te(t of the agreement/ as part of which the-uropean Union the USA and Eapan agreed to reduce their carbon dio(ide "4F/emissions. The protocol has come under attac% from both sides 0 manyenvironmentalists feel that it does not really address the threat of global warmingwhile many in industry feel it is an unnecessary burden.Global warming is a particularly

difficult issue as it demands a world0wide response. +any developing nations areunderstandably angered that a problem that seems to have been created by the richdeveloped nations will have most impact on them. A global consensus remains far off.

Pro Con

4ver the past ;66 years man%ind hasbeen burning increasing 7uantities offossil fuels such as coal and oil/ toprovide energy. This has released largevolumes of a number of gases into theatmosphere particularly "4F. At thesame time the worldDs remaining largeforests 0 which help absorb "4F 0 arebeing rapidly destroyed by commerciallogging and to ma%e way for farm land.4verall the levels of carbon dio(ide inthe atmosphere have increased by C6over the last century.When in theatmosphere "4F and other gases arethought to lead to a Dgreenhouse effectD9they allow sunlight to pass through butabsorb heat emitted by the earthtrapping it and leading to global warming.Weather records seem to support thistheory. Average temperatures haveincreased by up to 6.@H" since the ;<th

century& the four hottest years sinceaccurate records began have all been inthe last decade. Unusual weather

That man%ind is causing global warming isfar from being a proven fact. It is truethat records show that averagetemperatures have increased over thiscentury& however temperatures actuallydropped slightly between the ;<C6s andthe ;<>6s. This was not associated with areduction in fossil fuel emissions 0 in factthey were increasing over this period. Ifthe Dgreenhouse gasesD are responsiblefor global warming how can this beAccurate records simply do not cover along enough period to be useful. TheearthDs average temperature variesnaturally through time and we so farhave few or no good e(planations toe(plain events such as the ice ages.Indeed there was a Dmini0ice ageD aroundfour hundred years ago during which theThames in 3ondon repeatedly fro$e overduring winter& this was followed by an

intensive but natural period of DglobalwarmingD. We do not have enoughinformation to say that current trends



patterns such as floods and droughtshave also been on the increase with theuncharacteristically strong -l NiJo eventsof recent years causing widespreaddisruption. The Intergovernmental )anel

on "limate "hange I)""/ an internationalbody set up to study possible globalwarming has concluded that K... thebalance of evidence suggests that thereis a discernible human influence on globalclimate.K

are not simply natural variation.

"omputer models predict that continuedglobal warming could have catastrophiceffects. "hanges in temperature could

devastate wildlife as local vegetationdies off. )atterns of disease could change0 already isolated cases of malaria havebeen reported far north of traditionaldanger $ones as warmer weather allowsthe mos7uitoes which carry the diseaseto spread. +ost importantly a portion ofthe polar ice caps might melt and lead toa rise in sea level which has alreadyincreased by between ;6 and F=cm in thelast ;66 years. Giant crac%s have beenfound in the 3arsen ice shelf inAntarctica which suggest that it isbrea%ing apart& a section 5? miles wideand FF miles long drifted free and meltedas early as ;<<5. If as e(perts suggesttemperatures rise a further CH" over thene(t century low0lying areas of land andeven entire countries 0 such as#angladesh 0 could disappear under thewaves.

Again our computer models forpredicting climate change are far fromreliable. The weather is a hugely comple(

system that we are only ,ust beginning tounderstand& it is affected by millions offactors including solar activity volcaniceruptions ocean currents and othercycles which we are gradually discovering.Lery slight changes in the computermodel result in immense differences inpredictions. Some scientists have fore(ample suggested that global warmingcould actually cause a drop in sea level asrainfall patterns and ocean currentsshift. Indeed refinements in the modelsused by the I)"" have caused it to tonedown its predictions. In ;<<6 itestimated that by F;66 the averagetemperature would rise by CH" and thesea rise by about @=cm& by ;<<= it hadrevised these to FH" and =6cm. The moreresearch ta%es place the lessDcatastrophicD global warming seems tobe& however it is always the predictionsof doom which are most widely reportedin the media.

Technology has now reached the pointwhere we can continue to developstandards of living throughout the world

without needing to burn fossil fuels.8enewable sources of energy 0 such aswind or solar power 0 are ripe for

4f course there is an important role forgreater energy efficiency. owever mostalternatives to fossil fuels are simply not

effective. They can also cause their ownproblems. Nuclear power createsunacceptable radioactive waste& hydro0



development but have yet to see thelevels of investment needed to ma%ethem truly effective. +ore efficient useof energy is also vital. -ncouragingdevelopments such as electric cars or

promoting better insulation of housescould ma%e a substantial difference inthe long run. +oreover after the initialcosts greater efficiency would actuallybe economically beneficial.

electric power pro,ects such as theThree Gorges dam in "hina leads to theflooding of vast areas and thedestruction of the local environment&solar and wind power often re7uire the

covering of large areas of natural beautywith solar panels or turbines.-nvironmentalists often paint an idealisticview of renewable energy which is farfrom the less romantic reality.

Global warming is a world0widecatastrophe waiting to happen9 theemission of greenhouse gases affectseveryone. It is therefore vital that the

entire world responds now. The targetsset by the :yoto protocol will barelyscratch the surface of the problem. 4nlyminimal reductions were agreed to by thedeveloped world and no real agreementwas reached involving the developingworld which is producing a greaterpercentage of greenhouse gas emissionsevery year.Gases such as "4F remain inthe atmosphere for centuries. If we waituntil we can see the results of globalwarming it may be too late 0 the damagewill have been done and reducingemissions then will have no effect forgenerations. We therefore must act nowand we must act globally. !evelopedcountries must do all they can to reducetheir use of fossil fuels. They must assistdeveloping nations to do the same bysharing technology or perhaps throughDemissions tradingD 0 allowing poorercountries to sell their 7uota of pollutionin return for hard cash. Internationalpressure must be e(erted against thosecountries which do not co0operate& evenif this slows economic growth it is the

poorest regions in the world which wouldsuffer most from more droughts andfloods and rising sea0levels. owever

The evidence for global warming is notstrong enough to merit this %ind ofresponse 0 it is entirely possible that thechanges over the past century have been

purely natural. -nvironmentalists in thedeveloped world can afford the lu(ury ofdemanding government action asincreasingly technology0based economiesmean that reducing pollution will have aminimal impact on prosperity oremployment. Those in the developingworld are not so luc%y. Industrialisation isa %ey part of building successfuleconomies and bringing prosperity to theworldDs poorest people& heavy industry isoften the only area in which developingnations can compete.Global action ongreenhouse gas emissions would sustainthe ine7ualities of the current status 7uo.The developing world would be entirelydependent on multinationals to providethe technology they needed to %eeppollution levels low or else would have tostop e(panding their economies. avingapparently caused the problem throughthe industrialisation that made thempowerful developed countries wouldessentially be pulling the ladder up behindthem depriving other countries of thechance to do the same. This is simply

unacceptable9 in the modern world one ofour first priorities must be to help thepoorest people achieve the prosperity



difficult it may be in the short term itmay save millions of lives in the future.

they need to support themselves. Thecurrent evidence for global warming doesnot begin to merit endangering this goal.

!hould water be treated as an economic good and managed accordingly?

Water is the commonest substance on earth and constantly renews itself throughevaporation and rainfall. #ut <> of the worldDs water is in the oceans and most ofwhat is left is loc%ed up in ice caps and glaciers etc. leaving ,ust ; of the worldDswater available for human consumption. This water must not only satisfy domesticuse but also industry and agriculture.Water can be an important political issue in the developed world with argumentsabout privatisation water metering and effective regulation in #ritain over theallocation of scarce water resources in Australia and "alifornia about foreignownership and pricing in Argentina or about the use of hugely e(pensive/ desalinatedwater for agriculture in Saudi Arabia. Water is even more crucial to the developingworld. 4ver a billion people still have no decent water supply and F.5 billion do nothave proper sanitation& over @6 of global ill health can be lin%ed to water. Withouttac%ling these problems little progress can be made on other development issues e.g.children re7uired by the family to fetch water several miles cannot attend schoolsic% people cannot wor% infant mortality will remain very high/. The UNDsInternational Mear of 'resh Water in F66C focused attention on these issues andproduced commitments to halve the number of people without access to clean waterover the ne(t decade. -stimates of the cost of these targets range from C= billionto ;66 billion a year in addition to the c>= billion already invested in water each year in the developing world at present. Where this money should come from and howit should be spent remain controversial issues.

Pro Con

Water is a resource sub,ect to supply anddemand and so should be treated as aneconomic good. It may fall freely fromthe s%ies but it has to be collectedmanaged processed and supplied throughan e(pensive system of reservoirschannels processing plants and pipes.!irty water and human waste also have tobe removed and treated in sanitation

systems.

Water is a natural resource God0givenand free as it falls from the s%y. It isalso essential to all life includinghumanity. 3ac% of good water is thebiggest single factor in disease and illhealth in the developing world andwithout it people cannot grow crops tosupport themselves. )ollution of watersources or over0e(traction has a very

damaging environmental impact. 'or allthese reasons water is special and shouldbe seen as a common good part of the



responsibility of governments to theirpeople. Access to clean water is a humanright not something to be traded away orwithheld on grounds of cost.

When water is not treated as an economic

good it is wasted. 4n a domestic levelunmetered access to water means thatconsumers do not pay according to the7uantity they use and so they will use itwastefully. At a national level subsidisedwater for farmers and industryencourages wasteful methods andinappropriate crops e.g. growing water0hungry cotton in "alifornia or "entral

Asia both naturally areas of semi0desert/ often with a damaging impactupon the environment. )ricing wateraccording to its true cost would promotemore efficient and environmentally0friendly practices e.g. the use of drip0irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.

!emand for water increases with

population growth so it does not respondto mar%et signals in the way otherresources do. 8ich consumers in thedeveloped world also waste water throughe(travagant use of lu(uries such asgarden sprin%lers swimming pools lushgolf courses etc. 0 a problem which willget worse as income ine7uality increasesboth between and within countries.

!emand management is needed to preventwaste and to ensure access for allincluding the poor something whichpricing water in a purely economic way willnot achieve. This is a ,ob forgovernments accountable to their peoplenot for private companies.

)roblems of water supply need to beaddressed with huge investmentparticularly in the developing world wheremany people have no access to decentfresh water. -ven in the developed worldmuch water up to =6 in "anada/ iswasted through lea%s in pipes and ageinginfrastructure. The public sector hasfailed to provide the money for thisinvestment so private involvement isessential. 'or this investment to beattractive to the private sector watercompanies must be allowed to ma%e aprofit through realistic water chargesthat reflect the costs of supply. Issuesof 7uality e7uity and environmentalstandards can be handled througheffective regulation.

3arge sums are needed to meet globalwater targets but the private sector willonly provide these in return for a largecommercial return meaning that the truecost of the investment will eventually bemuch higher than if it were publiclyfunded. Investment from governmentsand donors is preferable to privatisationas they can target investment at themost needy rather than focusing uponthe most profitable opportunities. Watersupply is also a natural monopoly soprivate companies have no competitivepressures to drive up 7uality and drivedown prices.-ven in the developed world thee(perience of water privatisation is notencouraging9 in -ngland shareholders

cashed in and much of the industry endedup in foreign hands while prices went up yet droughts in the ;<<6s still led to



widespread rationing. 8ecent electricitysupply crises in "alifornia have also shownhow badly regulation of private utilitiescan fail. +eanwhile Australia hassuccessfully reformed its water supply

system while retaining it in public hands.Treating water as an economic good willbe better for the poor. "urrent regimesin developing countries often provide astate subsidy to the rich with waterprovided to middle0class areas andwealthy farmers at a fraction of its truecost while poorer areas have no supply atall. It is misleading to argue that

privatising the water supply is badbecause it will force the poor to pay fortheir water. The poor are already payingfor their water either directly toentrepreneurs who carry it in tubs andcans up to the shanty towns or with theirtime as they spend a large proportion ofthe familyDs labour fetching poor 7ualitywater from miles away. The poor also paythrough ill health caused by poor 7ualitywater and bad sanitation& this hits theirability to wor% and study and so often%eeps them in poverty.

Treating water as a purely economic goodwill be bad for the poor. The rich mayta%e advantage of badly targetedsubsidies in some developing countriesbut that does not mean that thesesubsidies are not essential to the poor.ow would farmers in much of India copewithout state0funded irrigation water

South African e(perience shows thatwhen their village water supply wascharged at even a low price many womenchose to fetch dirty river water from along distance rather than pay the newcost. The #olivian disaster of privatisingwater supply in "ochabamba shows thedangers9 the American firm #echteldoubled water tariffs so that somefamilies paid a third of their wholeincome in water rates mass protests ledto army repression and even death beforethe scheme collapsed completely.

'ailing to price water economically is badfor the environment. )roper pricing ofwater would reflect all the costs ofproviding it including the environmentalones. Water e(changes such asAustraliaDs one for the +urray0!arlingbasin/ can start by ta%ing account of theneeds of the environment and thentrading the remaining water efficientlythrough the actions of the mar%et.)ricing water according to consumptione.g. through domestic metering alsodiscourages wasteful use and so reduces

the demands on natural water systemssuch as rivers and underground a7uifers.

)rivate companies are unli%ely to care forthe environment. Their duties are totheir shareholders not to society atlarge and nature in general. They will see%to reduce costs and ma(imise profitsmost li%ely at the e(pense of highenvironmental standards.Attempting to use mar%et mechanismssuch as water e(changes to protect theenvironment is also a bad idea. The valueof healthy ecosystems and biodiversity isimpossible to calculate. Trying to do soma%es the environment ,ust another

resource to be e(ploited rather thanprotected for its own sa%e.



Is nuclear power the best way to meet the ever"increasing energy needs of the

planet, or do alternative energy sources provide a viable alternative?

In recent years this has been a hugely contentious debate. There is much public fearabout nuclear energy fuelled by accidents such as "hernobyl and Three +ile Island.It is however an issue which is becoming more important as we approach a time whenfossil fuel resources may run out ma%ing it necessary to find other power sources.An interesting recent development in -urope was the German governmentDsannouncement in Eune F666 that they will be closing down their ;< nuclear powerstations by F6F6. This debate therefore covers not ,ust nuclear energy but also thealternatives of fossil fuels and renewable sources. A brief summary of the differentenergy production methods currently available is listed below.

Nuclear 0 Nuclear fission is the splitting of large atoms into smaller atoms with therelease of energy stored in the original nucleus. It produces no greenhouse gases orother such pollutants but does produce radioactive waste that must be stored safelyfor thousands of years. There is also the ris% of a nuclear e(plosion due tomeltdown/ if the reaction gets out of control. This is different from nuclear fusion aprocess by which small atoms are ,oined to create larger atoms releasing energy inthe process. This technology is currently some years off./'ossil 'uels 0 'ossil fuels are the remains of prehistoric organisms now in the form ofcoal oil and gas. #urning them releases energy as well as greenhouse gases and acidrain0producing gases.Alternative Sources 0 ydroelectric power a renewable energy source whichconverts water falling through dams into electric power.Geothermal energy is another renewable energy source converting heat in roc%s intopower.Wind farms consist of windmill0li%e structures generating power from the wind&another renewable source.Solar panels convert solar energy into electricity renewably. -lectricity can also be

generated renewably from the energy stored in waves.

The definition for such a debate might be that governments should invest morestrongly in nuclear energy now and support it as the energy source for the future.This is a debate with to some e(tent two strands of opposition. The arguments putforward by the fossil fuels lobby are distinctly different from those put forward byenvironmental groups. #oth have been included below but note that some may becontradictoryO

Pro ConThe ma,ority of the worldDs electricity iscurrently produced via fossil fuels. These

It is a curious fact that the number offurther years that fossil fuel resources



are a finite resource and will run outshortly. "urrent F66=/ high oil pricesreflect both rapidly rising demand forenergy across the globe and the limitedsupply of fossil fuels to meet this need.

Although estimates are very variable asto e(actly how long fossil fuels will last itis possible that oil will be e(haustedwithin =6 years and coal within F= years.It is therefore a necessity to find a newsource of energy& we must thereforestart to convert to nuclear energy nowso there is not a ma,or crisis when fossilfuels do run out/ and invest in nuclear

energy for the future.

will last has remained unchanged for thelast few decadesO It is virtuallyimpossible to predict how long theseresources will last because there areundiscovered resources and because the

rate of use cannot be predictedaccurately. There are still vastune(ploited resources in "anada andSiberia to name but two/. In additionsome estimates predict that the lifetimeof natural gas is about C=6 yearsO Thereis no need at the moment to search for anew power source. That money would bebetter spent on creating technology to

clean the output from power stations. Wecan e(plore other sources of energy whenit becomes necessary in the future. Whenwe do so it will be from a much moreadvanced basis ma%ing developmenteasier.

In many senses nuclear energy is clean. Itdoes not produce gaseous emissions suchas greenhouse gases which are harmfuleither to the population or to theenvironment. It is true that it doesproduce radioactive waste. Since this is insolid form it can be dealt with much moreeasily and stored away from centres ofpopulation. The damage caused to theenvironment and populations due to theburning of fossil fuels is far in e(cess ofthe damage done to the environment dueto the nuclear industry including even the"hernobyl catastrophe. In this sensenuclear energy is very much preferable tothe burning of fossil fuels at the moment.'urthermore as new technology becomesavailable to allow the more efficient useof nuclear fuel less nuclear waste will beproduced. A recent e(ample is the

development of the fast breeder reactorwhich uses fuel much more efficiently./owever this trend will only continue

-ven apart from the safety issues thereare a number of problems with nuclearpower. 'irstly it is e(pensive andrelatively inefficient. The cost of buildingreactors is enormous and the price ofsubse7uently decommissioning them alsohuge. Without massive governmentsubsidy the nuclear industry cannot ma%emoney and building new plants isuneconomic compared to other methodsof power generation.Then there is also the problem of waste.Nuclear waste can remain radioactive forthousands of years. It must be stored forall this time away from water into whichit can dissolve and far from any tectonicactivity. This is virtually impossible andthere are serious concerns over the stateof waste discarded even a few decadesago. Governments have fre7uently

resorted to dumping waste into the sea&an action which it has been shown haslead to an increase in radioactivity along



with investment. Eudging from the paceof development of nuclear technologysince its inception it is fair to say thatwith more investment nuclear energy willbecome an even more desirable source of

energy with many of its currentdrawbac%s curtailed. The high price of oilat present loo%s set to continue andma%es the economic case for investmentin nuclear power even more attractive.

many coastlines.

It is unfortunately the case that thenuclear industry has had bad reputationfor safety. Not all of this reputation hasbeen deserved. The overwhelming

ma,ority of nuclear reactors havefunctioned safely and effectively fortheir entire lifetimes. The two ma,ornuclear accidents at Three +ile Islandand "hernobyl were both in old stylereactors made worse in the latter caseby poor Soviet safety standards. In thisdebate the reactors the proposition areadvocating are new reactors built to thehighest safety standards such as thoseunder construction in 'inland at present/.Such reactors have a perfect safetyrecord. )erhaps the best guarantee ofsafety standards in the nuclear industryis the increasing transparency with whichthe industry is presenting itself. +any ofthe problems in its early days werecaused by e(cessive control due to theorigin of nuclear energy from militaryapplications. As the gap between the twoseparates so the nuclear industrybecomes more accountable.

The nuclear industry has a shamefulsafety record. We can pic% out a numberof separate problems. There is always theris% of a meltdown or e(plosion. At Three

+ile Island we were minutes away fromthe former and at "hernobyl theunthin%able actually happened. The fallout from "hernobyl can still be detectedin our atmospheres. The effects on thelocal people and the environment weredevastating. It is perfectly true thatmodern nuclear reactors are safer butthey are not perfectly safe. There isalways that chance of a disaster and if webuild more reactors then sooner or laterthere will be another "hernobyl. It is7uite simply not worth the ris%. Thedumping of nuclear waste as e(plainedabove also presents a host of problems.There have also been a number of DminorDaccidents in nuclear power stationsrecently. 8eprocessed fuel from theUnited :ingdom was recently re,ectedfrom Eapan after it emerged that testresults had been fabricated. The NuclearInspectorate in the U: has also been verycritical of safety standards within theindustry. We have been told by theindustry that these are problems arebeing ironed out and that they will not

happen again. Time and time againhowever these same problems reoccurand we have to conclude that the industry



is not to be trusted. It is too dominatedby the profit motive to really care aboutsafety and too shrouded in secrecy to beaccountable. In addition the nuclearindustry has had a terrible cost on the

lives on those living around power plants.It cannot be a coincidence that the rateof occurrence of certain types of cancersuch as leu%aemia is much higher in thepopulation around nuclear plants.

It is also imperative to loo% at thealternatives when assessing in what formof energy to invest. 'or the reasonse(plained above diminishing supply

environmental damage/ we can rule fossilfuels out immediately. We also seeenormous problems with every form ofalternative energy. The most efficientsource of renewable energy has beenhydroelectric power. owever thisusually creates more problems than itsolves. #uilding a large dam necessarilyfloods an enormous region behind the damwhich in turn can displace tens ofthousands of people. There are alsoenormous ecological costs to dam building.A classical e(ample is the Aswan dam in-gypt along the Nile. Not only did manythousands lose their homes but the yearlyinundation of the Nile which fertilisedthe surrounding land for thousands of year was also stopped. The subse7uentsilting up of the river destroyed muchwildlife. A similar story of ecologicaldestruction and human homelessnesssurrounded the more recent ThreeGorges dam pro,ect in "hina.Solar energy has never lived up toe(pectations since it is hugely inefficient.A solar panel the si$e of -urope would be

needed to power a city the si$e of3ondonO Wind energy is only marginallybetter with an unsightly wind farm the

The proposition lists a number ofproblems with alternative energy. It isperfectly true that alternative energy isnot efficient enough to serve the energy

needs of the worldDs population today.owever with investment all thesemethods could be made efficient enoughto serve man%ind. It is also true thatinitiation of alternative energy schemessuch as the Aswan dam have causedproblems. #ut the opposition are notadvocating a blan%et solution to everyproblem. +any dam pro,ects for e(amplecould have been replaced by solar powerhad the technology been availablewithout the downside to the dams. Inaddition there is almost always onerenewable resource that a given countrycan e(ploit& tides for islands the sun fore7uatorial countries hot roc%s forvolcanic regions etc. and so any givencountry can in principle become self0sufficient with renewable energy. Theglobal distribution of uranium is hugelyuneven much more so than fossil fuels/and the use of nuclear power thereforegives countries with uranium depositsdisproportionate economic power. It isfar from inconceivable that uranium couldbe sub,ect to the same %ind of monopoly

that the 4)-" 4rganisation of )etroleum-(porting "ountries/ places on oil.Indeed if the whole world went over to



si$e of Te(as needed to provide theenergy for Te(as alone. The worstperformers of all have been geothermaland tidal energy which have beenhopelessly inefficient because no roc%s

have been found that are hot enough andno waves have been found that are strongenoughO The great irony is that not onlyare most renewable sources inefficientbut many are also ecologically unsoundOThe opposition to the building wind farmsin certain areas has been ,ust as strongas the opposition to nuclear powerbecause wind farms destroy the scenery

being so unsightly and large and may alsobe bad for wildlife.

nuclear power supplies of usable uraniumore would run out within a few shortdecades. This prevents countries fromachieving self0sufficiency in energyproduction.

The nuclear industry is a ma,or employer.It creates numerous ,obs at the momentand with investment will create evenmore.

It is entirely fatuous to suggest thatnuclear power is the only employmentprovider. There will always be roughly thesame number of ,obs in energyproduction. If spending on the nuclearindustry were redirected to renewableenergy then ,obs would simply move fromone to the other.

Spreading the peaceful use of nuclearpower brings us important securitybenefits. Under the Non0)roliferationTreaty the declared nuclear weaponsstates the USA U: 8ussia 'rance and"hina/ have promised to assist othercountries in gaining access to civiliannuclear power providing that they in turndo not see% nuclear weapons. This hasonly happened to a limited e(tent but asan increasing number of countries see% touse nuclear material for militarypurposes it is in the interests of thedeclared nuclear weapons states touphold their side of the bargain morevigorously so that others can be held to

theirs.This security calculation is strengthenedby events since the end of the "old War.

-ncouraging the further adoption ofnuclear power is against our securityinterests. The scientific understandingand technology needed to generatenuclear power is the same as that neededto create nuclear weapons and it is all tooeasy for rogue states to pretend they areonly interested in peaceful uses whilesecretly pursuing military applications.This is the route India and Israel havefollowed and that Iran may well befollowing at present.-ven if the intentions of foreigngovernments are good widespreadnuclear power plants are at ris% ofterrorism. This applies ,ust as much in

the USA or other western countries as itdoes in the developing world. If aSeptember ;;0style flying bomb was flown



+any former Soviet nuclear scientistslost their ,obs and may be tempted to selltheir s%ills to the highest foreign bidderincluding to rogue states see%ing nuclearweapons. It is in our interest to promote

peaceful use of nuclear technologiesencouraging these scientists to findemployment in an industry which is bothpeaceful and useful.

into a nuclear power plant the potentialdisaster would be catastrophic. And themore nuclear material is transportedaround the world the easier it will be forterrorists to get hold of some in order to

ma%e their own nuclear weapons. Anatomic bomb might one day be within thereach of some international terroristgroups but even today a simple KdirtybombK in which highly0radioactivematerials is blasted over an urban areausing conventional e(plosives/ could bedeadly to many thousands of people.

idebate environment

Documents