Re: " Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out "

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Franta, Jaroslav <frantaj@AECL.CA>

An: Radsafe (E-mail) <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2001 18:16

Betreff: " Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out "





>Excerpt from a special edition of Nucleonics Week, dated yesterday.

>

>Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out

>

>Canada, the other holdout country which as late as July 22 had tried to

>include nuclear in the CDM, likewise gave it up in the eleventh hour.

>A Canadian statement issued after the conference concluded said that on the

>CDM Canada "would have preferred to see more flexibility" but added, "we

>expect that as detailed rules are elaborated, improvements can be made."

>However, Alan Nymark, Canada's Deputy Ministry of Environment, spelled out

>to Nucleonics Week July 23 that nuclear energy "is not one of these

>details" which Canada hopes to raise in the future. "Nuclear is absolutely

>not going to be raised. It won't be eligible for CDM credits," Nymark said.

>He declined to say why Canada gave up its support for nuclear energy.

>"Canada was happy to join the consensus" which opposed including it, Nymark

>said.

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------



This obviously refers to the Kyoto protocol negotiations in Bonn. According

to the informations we have, everything looks a little different. There

seems to have been an attempt by some (?) nations to get credit to emit more

CO2, if they used nuclear power on the other side for electricity

production. In most European countries it is politically impossible to say a

positive word about nuclear power (isn't it the same in the USA?), therefore

it was clear that because of political reasons such a proposal had no chance

to be adopted.



Canada has no need to raise the question of nuclear power in the context

with the Kyoto protocol. In a compromise - which most countries regard a

foul one - it became possible to balance required reduction of CO2 emission

by "sinks" like existing forests and forestation. Canada is really well off

with this "compromise" and its vast forests. So, why on earth, should the

Canadian Deputy Minister for the Environment complain about the "compromise"

and put forward Nuclear Power? Using Nuclear Power instead of coal, oil,

gas, will anyway reduce the output of CO2 and is therefore favourable for

the balance. It would not have been justified to claim an extra benefit in

my opinion.



"Nuclear power is not a scientific, but a political issue." I repeat it

again and again.



Franz









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.