What do environmentalists and nuclear power have in common? More than you might think. Even though many with a deep concern for the environment are also opposed to nuclear power, worries about climate change are pushing the world inevitably in that direction. In fact, a sequel to Kyoto could soon become the final catalyst for a worldwide proliferation of nuclear power.
Nuclear advocates and climate change activists have been strange bedfellows for a long time. The British documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” claims the connection started in the 1980s. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wanted to break the power of the coal-mining unions. And, in a two-pronged strategy, the “Iron Lady” pushed for nuclear power while funding research that suggested burning fossil fuels such as coal could warm the earth.
The Chernobyl disaster put nuclear development on hold in Britain and almost everywhere else. Only four new nuclear plants were built worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Yet, as many as 226 new nuclear plants could be built or underway by 2020, according to Saskatchewan’s own Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report. This dramatic shift could only happen in an era when carbon, the substance that makes up every living thing, is considered a pollutant. Only then could nuclear emerge as the “clean” energy for a power-hungry world.
The UDP report states with surprising candour that the only way a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan would make financial sense is with a carbon price of at least $30 per tonne and a natural gas price above $6 per mmBTU. Otherwise, gas or coal would be preferable. The report estimates that the current price on carbon of $18 per tonne could rise to $50 per tonne following a new “global deal” on carbon.
This means that both climate change activists and the nuclear industry are waiting with baited breath for a sequel to the Kyoto accord. This could happen as early as December as the nations gather in Copenhagen to hammer out a carbon reduction agreement. Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are just the beginning of potentially devastating consequences.
Just ask Lord Christopher Monckton, once a science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton says that carbon causes only one-sixth as much warming as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would suggest. This means it would take 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions just to increase the temperature of the earth by one degree. Conversely, since human activity produces just 30 billion tonnes of C02 annually, it would take 430 years without any industry or even a man-made fire on earth just to lower the temperature a single degree.
Monckton warns that the early drafts of the Copenhagen Accord call for nations who sign on to surrender substantial national sovereignty. An unelected United Nations would have substantial sway over domestic fiscal and environmental policy all to reduce carbon. In other words, democracy will be compromised to save the world from a problem that may not be serious.
Rest assured, such an accord would make life more difficult. Food will become more expensive as crops are used for biofuels. Carbon levies would also make gas and electricity more expensive. Yet, should a Copenhagen Accord occur, two groups could be cheering the loudest: climate change activists and nuclear power companies. Sometimes the law of unintended consequences also creates unintended bedfellows.