Home | About | Donate

US 'Spits in the Face' of World by Promoting Fossil Fuels at UN Climate Summit


#1

US 'Spits in the Face' of World by Promoting Fossil Fuels at UN Climate Summit

Jon Queally, staff writer

"The Trump Administration should be held criminally accountable for what they are doing in the U.S. and around the world on climate change."


#2

What is needed, it seems to me, is to label these fossil fuel, climate criminals for what they are: ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS! Forget ISIS and other terrorist organizations, what we need is a war on the real terrorists: the greedy, fossil fuel companies, like Exxon that polluted Alaskan waters and have never been held accountable.


#3

“Climate campaigners on Monday said that for the U.S. delegation to promote fossil fuel expansion and nuclear energy at the UN climate summit in Bonn, Germany is to “spit in the face of victims of climate change.””

Oh is it?! How do you possibly think that nuclear energy promotes climate change?! Nuclear Energy is responsible for 65% of CO2 emission free energy in the USA right now. It has done more to reduce CO2 than all renewables combined even though we are using 60 year old technology.

Do not lump nuclear energy in with fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is not a fossil fuel. Its not the same process, its not the same materials, its not the same energy release, its not the same electrical generation etc. Why are you lumping them together? Every single time the USA has ever early decommissioned a nuclear plant it has so far been replaced by coal or natural gas plants. If you campaign to get rid of the plants, natural gas will take over them, which greatly increases CO2 emissions.


#4

If the US government is going to talk about advanced technologies in nuclear at the UN, they absolutely should be talking about the GIF Iniative. If not they are all frauds! Its a 16 year old charter that was supposed to promote advanced nuclear designs. Yet 16 years have passed, billions of dollars into private investment of advanced nuclear, collaboration with national laboratories, and yet we still have not had a single bill brought to the congressional floor to create completely new regulatory standards and licensing procedures for Generation IV nuclear. That is insane to me. We invented this technology 50-70 years ago. We are developing the technology today. Why on earth has it taken 3 presidents to never bring about much needed reform in nuclear standards as it applies to GIF?

If I was in the nuclear industry my blood would already be boiling, as the US government has already shown to be an inept partner. The US government already owes the nuclear industry $30 Billion for failing to produce a nuclear waste facility that has been promised to the industry for the last 40 years. The government violated the contract. If this money isn’t going to waste facilities as it was agreed upon, where exactly is this money going?


#5

I’m at the Climate conference now, and I can tell you that there are many American NGOs, mayors, and organizers who are warmly welcomed because they tell the rest of the world “We are still in!”


#6

Carbon pollution is a crime against humanity.


#7

Agreed, you can’t lump fossil fuels and nuclear power when it comes to climate change. What they are lumping together are energy sources that they oppose. There are good reasons to be against nuclear power, but fighting climate change isn’t one of them. Ideally it would be better to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewable energy sources but for very different reasons.


#8

I’ll second that…


#9

…ravaged and plundered and ripped her and did her, stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn, tied her with fences and dragged her down…Jim Morrison

frankly, the whole thing is kinda embarrassing


#10

Music is your only friend, until the end…


#11

I will believe the other 190 countries are serious about slowing capitalism’s destruction of the biosphere, when they all agree to an economic boycott of US, filing of crimes against humanity against US elected leaders, etc. How about standing up against US militarism and perpetual global wars, 800+ military outposts spread nearly every country on earth, carrier battle fleets in every ocean on earth, etc.
What does US have to do to get the rest of the world to unite? The Paris agreement is a diversion, smoke screen the oligarchs of the other 190 countries use to satisfy their population they are taking action, when actually, the only action they are taking is business as usual, maximizing profits at the expense of the biosphere … likely they took notes from Obama as to how to green wash the masses on his way to 9 digit bank account … Trump is refreshing in that he does not con us like DEMs, or others in GOP, he says what we are actually going to do with fossil in US - maximize its extraction and sell! Paris agreement has no enforcement rules, simply goals countries can try to achieve, or not … this would be funny, if we were not going to be extinct in short term


#12

Nuclear energy is no solution to fossil fuels. We have no safe way to dispose of the waste products which remain dangerously radioactive for millions to billions of years. We still have the waste created by the very first reactors so why would we want to make even more of something we can’t safely dispose of?


#13

#14

Are what exactly? The irony is that they are on their way out such as the creatures from which fossil fuels derived. And no, uranium is not renewable and is dangerous to life forms.

Somme articles linking uranium mining, colonialism and injustice toward the native peoples:

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/french-nuclear-power-fed-uranium-niger


#15

Nuclear power is not sustainable, it is the product of externalized costs. The industry has yet to clean up open pit uranium mines littered all over the country. And considers fracking an improvement. Accepts the uncontrolled releases of radiation at Fukushima through industry coercion. Not to mention the military applications and current geopolitical issues. Nuclear energy is a blight on mankind.


#16

It may not be promoting climate chaos/disruption but it most assuredly is promoting the death of sea life/water and land: Think Fukushima, think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. And how can we possibly think we can safely store it while mass producing it and when it has such a long life span? But, I get it, we simply are reluctant to give up our ways of “life” and are just looking for ways to continue along our ignoble way.


#17

I am glad it is Trump, who is spitting in the face of the world. Clinton would have ripped the world apart with wars, she would have installed solar panels to operate carbon generating furnaces!

Seriously Jon now you say it is US? You equated Trump and Clinton at the time. Enjoy! But please do not call it US , majority of Americans voted for sane policies. It is Trump who is doing it.


#18

…beautiful friend, the end…


#19

"It may not be promoting climate chaos/disruption but it most assuredly is promoting the death of sea life/water and land: Think Fukushima, think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island"
That’s a very interesting theory and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was their opinion. Unfortunately its an opinion that is has little to no evidence and is in fact contradictive to statistical data on nuclear energy effect on the environment.

  1. Nuclear in fact has one of the lowest mortality rates among all energy sources including both level 7 nuclear accidents.
  2. Nuclear also has one of the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions of all energy sources.
  3. Nuclear produces the least amount of waste per KWh of production.

Additionally, “And how can we possibly think we can safely store it while mass producing it and when it has such a long life span”.
Yet another common point made against the nuclear industry that illustrates a complete misunderstanding of nuclear waste and potential solutions.

  1. The half life of the material does not determine the danger of the material, nor does all waste have a long half life.
  2. Nuclear waste is not a single mass material, but rather a mixture of hundreds of different types of isotopes each with their own decay rate. When we talk about the decay heat that was a problem in Fukushima- this heat is made as fission products rapidly decay within seconds to a few days and as a result of decaying release energy. When we talk about actual spent fuel waste this does not last for thousands of years.
  3. 98% of all high level waste is made of isotopes that can be used for nuclear fuel. That is Uranium 238 fertile fuel, Uranium 235 fissile fuel and Plutonium 239 fissile fuel. This means we can separate these isotopes and fission them. When we fission U-235 and Pu-239 the decay rates for their products greatly diminishes. China, UK, France, Russia, India and Japan already do this with some of their U-235 and U-238 nuclear waste, and the USA also used to do this until the 1970s.

As for “no solution” this is not true at all. Now I’m not even going to get into the political BS that was the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Deep Geological Depository, but the fact remains that the Nuclear industry has paid $30 billion for that project that was promised, but now terminated by the US government. So either that money needs to be spent for other nuclear energy development or the nuclear industry gets a rebate. Personally I did not even fully support the Yucca Mountain Depository deal, because imo its a huge waste of resources.

  1. As mentioned above we can use reprocessing to separate and reuse 98% of the high level waste for fuel in both thermal and fast spectrum reactors that will produce electricity. Additionally advanced forms of reprocessing like pyro-processing enable us to separate more than just transuranic and fuel from the waste stream. We can also separate fission products that have real world application. Products such as Cesium 137 that can be used in agriculture for food irradiation that kills e coli on foreign imports. Strontium 90 that can be used in gauges to determine if there are internal fractures in concrete. Iodine 131 that can be used to treat thyroid cancer. Technetium 99 and Molybdenum 103 that can be used for neurological procedures. Xenon 134 that can be used for spacecraft, high efficiency windows or lighting. Neodynmium142 that can be used in the manufacturing of sound equipment etc. Many fission products have application and we in fact currently use radioactive material in out products. The difference is that we understand how radiation works so that we can determine if there is a risk to people or not.

  2. Reprocessing will help with some fission products and nuclear fuel, but there are some waste products that can last a very long time still, so what do we do with transuranic waste? We burn it. This does NOT mean put radioactive material in a kiln and light it on fire. Combustion burning is a chemical reaction on the molecular level. In the nuclear industry, when they talk about burning it is on the atomic level. Nuclear burning is the process of manipulating neutrons in radioactive isotopes usually with the plan to reduce decay rate of the material. We already do this although not for the reason I just mentioned. Plutonium 239 is created, when Uranium 238 is hit by a neutron. U-238 then becomes U-239, which instead of having a 4.5 billion year half life it has only a 4.6 minute half life. U-239 then decays into Neptunium 239 and then into Pu-239. In Advanced Burner Reactors the goal is to take a transuranic substance like Americium 241 and add a neutron to create Americium 242. Am-241’s half life is 432 years, but Am-242’s half life is 16.7 hours.


#20

Please read my new comment to Giovanna-Lepore, where I specifically mention ways to reduce nuclear waste that already exist but are not very well known. If you would like sources I can provide you with information. I personally support Metallurgical Pyro-processing that was developed by Argonne National Laboratory and has been used over the last 10 years to dispose of about 12 tons of high level waste. I also support Advanced Burner Reactors. The US Department of Energy has several grants and projects about ABRs, but there are also companies like TerraPower that have been constructing reactors with ABR technology integrated into their design.