Wandel in Energiepolitik
Windhoek - In einem Offenen Brief an das Bergbau- und Energieministerium hat die Umweltorganisation Earthlife Namibia für eine Umkehr in der Energiepolitik gefordert. Dazu sollen alle Ideen und Pläne für den Einstieg in die Kernenergie verworfen werden. Sonne und Wind in diesem Land böten genügend Möglichkeiten für die Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien. Damit nicht genug: Earthlife fordert auch die Schließung aller Uranminen. Das sagte Bertchen Kohrs, Vorsitzende der Umweltorganisation, gestern auf AZ-Nachfrage.
Bis jetzt habe sich das Ministerium noch nicht zum Inhalt des Offenen Briefes geäußert, so Kohrs. Wie sie weiter sagte, solle noch in diesem Monat ein Earthlife-Positionspapier an das Fachministerium überreicht werden. Dieses Dokument sei ein Beitrag zur derzeitigen Erarbeitung von gesetzlichen Richtlinien für Exploration, Abbau, Verarbeitung (inklusive Anreicherung) von Uran sowie die Nutzung von Nuklearenergie. Die Strategie zu diesem Themenkomplex soll Mitte 2011 vorliegen - zu früh, mahnt Earthlife. Bei der Komplexität dieser Sache dürfe kein "unausgereiftes Dokument" vorgelegt werden, so Kohrs.
Die Ablehnung von Uranabbau und Kernenergie begründet Earthlife vor allem mit Risiken für die Gesundheit der Menschen (Bergarbeiter und Anwohner in Minennähe) sowie für die Natur. Auch die Gefahr durch Terrorismus bzw. einen Anschlag auf ein Kernkraftwerk wird genannt. Sollte sich Namibia für Nuklearenergie entscheiden, so sei zumindest ein Referendum nötig. "Ein Atomkraftwerk ist etwas so entscheidendes, dass das Volk mitentscheiden muss", so Kohrs abschließend.
Open Letter To The Mining Commissioner, Mr Erasmus Shivolo
Re: Policy and Regulatory Framework for Uranium
Dear Mr Shivolo,
after having attended the first stakeholder workshop on 29th November 2010 discussing policy and regulation on uranium exploration, mining, milling and nuclaer energy, I wish to express Earthlife's gratitude for involving NGOs, other organsiations and the general public in this process.
Earthlife is presently working on recommendations for the environmental and social policies in order to keep the impact of the uranium industry as low as possible. The document will soon be submitted to your office.
It was mentioned at the workshop, that the policy document is expected to be finalized by the middle of 2011. Earthlife is deeply worried about the short time allocated for such a complex subject, where many issues need to be researched in depth and agreed upon. We urge government to reconsider the time schedule and allow as much time as is necessary to develop proper policies and regulations on the nuclear industry.
Earthlife suggests that government should become a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) with the goal to set a global standard for transparency in oil, gas and mining. EITI is a coalition of governments, companies and civil society and sets a standard for companies to publish what they pay and what they earn and for governments to disclose what they receive.
Earthlife further suggests that a scientific based cost-benefit calculation should be done on energy generation comparing renewable resources with non-renewable resources including nuclear. Likewise important is a cost-benefit comparison between uranium mining and tourism. Well-managed tourism creates more jobs and has long-term benefits for Namibia and its people differing to uranium mining. Our government has a greater responsibility than just attracting wealthy international mining companies to Namibia. We need long-term and sustainable goals for the benefit of the country and its people and cannot afford exploitation of our precious environment to satisfy a few beneficiaries.
Earthlife strongly opposes generation of nuclear energy in Namibia (and per se). There are much safer, cheaper and environmental friendlier options. Namibia with its favourable sun and wind condition could become a global leader utilizing these renewable resources. We urge government to drop plans of nuclear energy production and instead investigate renewable and sustainable opportunities.
There are many reasons speaking against nuclear power.
1) Each single step of the entire nuclear chain - from uranium exploration and mining, enrichment and fuel production, dismantling of nuclear power plants and to storage of nuclear waste - produces radioactive waste, its half-life being more than 100,000 years, whereas the question of safe waste disposal still remains unresolved.
2) Although modern technology may be fairly safe, human failure can never be ruled out. Many accidents (e.g. the reactor explosion in Chernobyl) are prompted by human error.
3) Nuclear power plants are said to be safe. This is not true. Ionizing radiation damages living organisms and contaminates the environment, sometimes permanently. Studies have shown increases in cancer around uranium mines and nuclear facilities. Radiation mutates genes which can cause genetic damage across generations. It has been reported that in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany five times more leukemia cases in children than normal have been diagnosed.
4) Dumping sites of nuclear waste may carry similar danger. Newly published figures from the Lower Saxony State Cancer Registry in Germany show that in the area around Asse, the site of the controversial nuclear waste dump, cancer rates are higher than normal. Between 2002 and 2009 there were 12 cases of leukemia in the greater Asse region, twice the rate expected. The rate of thyroid cancer was three times higher as normal.
5) Terrorism is getting more horrifying with the attempt to hurt as many people and do as much harm as possible. A nuclear power plant hit by a bomb will turn the whole country into a nuclear bomb.
6) The nuclear lobby tries to make the public believe that generation of nuclear power is a) environmental friendly, b) sustainable, c) curbs climate change, d) is cheap.
a) Mining of uranium uses enormous amounts of water and electricity, leaves behind huge scars in the landscape, contaminates soil, air, surface and ground-water, exposes mine workers and residents to radioactive and toxic dust with possible negative health effects, and generates huge amounts of radioactive and toxic waste.
b) Mined minerals are not infinite. At some foreseeable time uranium will be exploited and will leave all nuclear power plants without fuel.
c) While it is true that nuclear power plants don't generate carbon dioxide - said to be one of the main man-made dynamics causing climate change - the entire nuclear chain consumes lots of energy, thus producing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is counterproductive to address climate change effectively and in time. Funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions like solar, wind and geothermal energy of essential resources.
d) Ccosts to build a nuclear power plant are much higher than that of any other power plant being it coal, oil, gas or renewable. In general nuclear power plants are subsidised by governments and thus paid by tax payers. A nuclear power plant produces more electricity than Namibia needs including demands by present and future uranium mines. Exporting costly energy to neighbouring countries is questionable.
The decision for nuclear power should not be taken by government alone but through a democratic referendum. To make a referendum a fair process, the Namibian public needs to be properly informed about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
By publishing the above, Earthlife anticipates to trigger off a public debate on a subject that concerns each and every Namibian. Uranium mining, nuclear power generation, nuclear waste storage and its various impacts have a long-lasting effect on present and future generations.
Few individuals in Namibia have expressed their opinion on this crucial subject. We would like the public to get involved. It concerns us all. Nuclear power can be as deadly as HIV/AIDS, but much more long-lasting and giving less choice of own decision.
With kind regards,
Bertchen Kohrs on behalf of Earthlife Namiba (E-Mail: [email protected]), 9.1.2011
Bis jetzt habe sich das Ministerium noch nicht zum Inhalt des Offenen Briefes geäußert, so Kohrs. Wie sie weiter sagte, solle noch in diesem Monat ein Earthlife-Positionspapier an das Fachministerium überreicht werden. Dieses Dokument sei ein Beitrag zur derzeitigen Erarbeitung von gesetzlichen Richtlinien für Exploration, Abbau, Verarbeitung (inklusive Anreicherung) von Uran sowie die Nutzung von Nuklearenergie. Die Strategie zu diesem Themenkomplex soll Mitte 2011 vorliegen - zu früh, mahnt Earthlife. Bei der Komplexität dieser Sache dürfe kein "unausgereiftes Dokument" vorgelegt werden, so Kohrs.
Die Ablehnung von Uranabbau und Kernenergie begründet Earthlife vor allem mit Risiken für die Gesundheit der Menschen (Bergarbeiter und Anwohner in Minennähe) sowie für die Natur. Auch die Gefahr durch Terrorismus bzw. einen Anschlag auf ein Kernkraftwerk wird genannt. Sollte sich Namibia für Nuklearenergie entscheiden, so sei zumindest ein Referendum nötig. "Ein Atomkraftwerk ist etwas so entscheidendes, dass das Volk mitentscheiden muss", so Kohrs abschließend.
Open Letter To The Mining Commissioner, Mr Erasmus Shivolo
Re: Policy and Regulatory Framework for Uranium
Dear Mr Shivolo,
after having attended the first stakeholder workshop on 29th November 2010 discussing policy and regulation on uranium exploration, mining, milling and nuclaer energy, I wish to express Earthlife's gratitude for involving NGOs, other organsiations and the general public in this process.
Earthlife is presently working on recommendations for the environmental and social policies in order to keep the impact of the uranium industry as low as possible. The document will soon be submitted to your office.
It was mentioned at the workshop, that the policy document is expected to be finalized by the middle of 2011. Earthlife is deeply worried about the short time allocated for such a complex subject, where many issues need to be researched in depth and agreed upon. We urge government to reconsider the time schedule and allow as much time as is necessary to develop proper policies and regulations on the nuclear industry.
Earthlife suggests that government should become a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) with the goal to set a global standard for transparency in oil, gas and mining. EITI is a coalition of governments, companies and civil society and sets a standard for companies to publish what they pay and what they earn and for governments to disclose what they receive.
Earthlife further suggests that a scientific based cost-benefit calculation should be done on energy generation comparing renewable resources with non-renewable resources including nuclear. Likewise important is a cost-benefit comparison between uranium mining and tourism. Well-managed tourism creates more jobs and has long-term benefits for Namibia and its people differing to uranium mining. Our government has a greater responsibility than just attracting wealthy international mining companies to Namibia. We need long-term and sustainable goals for the benefit of the country and its people and cannot afford exploitation of our precious environment to satisfy a few beneficiaries.
Earthlife strongly opposes generation of nuclear energy in Namibia (and per se). There are much safer, cheaper and environmental friendlier options. Namibia with its favourable sun and wind condition could become a global leader utilizing these renewable resources. We urge government to drop plans of nuclear energy production and instead investigate renewable and sustainable opportunities.
There are many reasons speaking against nuclear power.
1) Each single step of the entire nuclear chain - from uranium exploration and mining, enrichment and fuel production, dismantling of nuclear power plants and to storage of nuclear waste - produces radioactive waste, its half-life being more than 100,000 years, whereas the question of safe waste disposal still remains unresolved.
2) Although modern technology may be fairly safe, human failure can never be ruled out. Many accidents (e.g. the reactor explosion in Chernobyl) are prompted by human error.
3) Nuclear power plants are said to be safe. This is not true. Ionizing radiation damages living organisms and contaminates the environment, sometimes permanently. Studies have shown increases in cancer around uranium mines and nuclear facilities. Radiation mutates genes which can cause genetic damage across generations. It has been reported that in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany five times more leukemia cases in children than normal have been diagnosed.
4) Dumping sites of nuclear waste may carry similar danger. Newly published figures from the Lower Saxony State Cancer Registry in Germany show that in the area around Asse, the site of the controversial nuclear waste dump, cancer rates are higher than normal. Between 2002 and 2009 there were 12 cases of leukemia in the greater Asse region, twice the rate expected. The rate of thyroid cancer was three times higher as normal.
5) Terrorism is getting more horrifying with the attempt to hurt as many people and do as much harm as possible. A nuclear power plant hit by a bomb will turn the whole country into a nuclear bomb.
6) The nuclear lobby tries to make the public believe that generation of nuclear power is a) environmental friendly, b) sustainable, c) curbs climate change, d) is cheap.
a) Mining of uranium uses enormous amounts of water and electricity, leaves behind huge scars in the landscape, contaminates soil, air, surface and ground-water, exposes mine workers and residents to radioactive and toxic dust with possible negative health effects, and generates huge amounts of radioactive and toxic waste.
b) Mined minerals are not infinite. At some foreseeable time uranium will be exploited and will leave all nuclear power plants without fuel.
c) While it is true that nuclear power plants don't generate carbon dioxide - said to be one of the main man-made dynamics causing climate change - the entire nuclear chain consumes lots of energy, thus producing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is counterproductive to address climate change effectively and in time. Funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions like solar, wind and geothermal energy of essential resources.
d) Ccosts to build a nuclear power plant are much higher than that of any other power plant being it coal, oil, gas or renewable. In general nuclear power plants are subsidised by governments and thus paid by tax payers. A nuclear power plant produces more electricity than Namibia needs including demands by present and future uranium mines. Exporting costly energy to neighbouring countries is questionable.
The decision for nuclear power should not be taken by government alone but through a democratic referendum. To make a referendum a fair process, the Namibian public needs to be properly informed about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
By publishing the above, Earthlife anticipates to trigger off a public debate on a subject that concerns each and every Namibian. Uranium mining, nuclear power generation, nuclear waste storage and its various impacts have a long-lasting effect on present and future generations.
Few individuals in Namibia have expressed their opinion on this crucial subject. We would like the public to get involved. It concerns us all. Nuclear power can be as deadly as HIV/AIDS, but much more long-lasting and giving less choice of own decision.
With kind regards,
Bertchen Kohrs on behalf of Earthlife Namiba (E-Mail: [email protected]), 9.1.2011
Kommentar
Allgemeine Zeitung
Zu diesem Artikel wurden keine Kommentare hinterlassen