The role of nuclear power in Europe received an unexpected boost yesterday as
EU leaders hailed a landmark climate change deal to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and switch to renewable fuels.
Environmentalists complained that an ambitious headline goal to cut Europe’s
CO emissions by a fifth by 2020 had been weakened by concessions to the main
nuclear nations and the biggest polluters in Eastern Europe.
Nonetheless, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will use the agreement
struck at the spring EU summit in Brussels to put pressure on world leaders
to follow suit when she hosts the G8 meeting in June.
China, India and Brazil will join that summit and, like the US, be challenged
to accept the principle of binding CO cuts for the first time.
As well as agreeing in principle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EU
leaders pledged to ensure that 20 per cent of Europe’s energy will come from
renewable sources by 2020. The commitment of all 27 member nations is
legally enforceable by the European Court of Justice.
Months of haggling will follow as diplomats argue over targets for individual
countries. Each will contribute a different amount, and diplomats made clear
that less would be expected of the heaviest-polluting former Communist
countries. The Czechs and Slovaks had both complained that they had only
just left decades of five-year plans behind them.
In a sop to France and the Czech Republic, a country’s nuclear power
capability will be taken into account when calculating national commitments
to renewable energy. France produces 80 per cent of its electricity from
nuclear power stations and insisted that this “noncarbon” source of fuel
should be taken into consideration. French diplomats believe this will
lessen the EU demand for more renewable sources such as wave, wind and solar
power.
Jacques Chirac, the outgoing French President, welcomed the deal as one of the
top three achievements of the EU during his 12 years in the Elysée Palace.
Tony Blair was also pleased with the concession towards the nuclear powers.
The outcome will give a boost to his plans to rebuild Britain’s ageing
nuclear power stations which suffered a setback last month when the High
Court ruled that the consultation process was seriously flawed. Mr Blair
said: “There is then the 20 per cent target on renewable energy. In setting
that, there will be permission to look at the energy mix that countries have
. . . including nuclear technology, which obviously helps the UK as well.”
Environmentalists were less enthusiastic. Friends of the Earth said the
targets were timid. A spokesman said: “Heads of States gave a modest boost
to the uptake of renewable energies, but agreed that the EU should aim low
on cutting greenhouse gases, and failed again to agree any concrete
commitment towards reducing Europe’s appalling waste of energy.”
Mr Blair and Mr Chirac were full of praise for the handling of the summit by
Mrs Merkel, who faced strong opposition to her climate change ambitions from
several nations, not least in eastern European countries such as Poland,
which still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
But she was determined to give herself the best possible leverage on members
of the G8 to persuade them to follow suit and prepare a postKyoto global
framework for cutting harmful emissions.
President Chirac described the outcome as “one of the great moments of
European history”. He said: “It was not easy, but Mrs Merkel achieved it
with lots of intelligence and brio.”
Key to any new global deal will be the United States, where Congress refused
to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but also China, India and Brazil, which were
all excused Kyoto targets because they were classed as developing nations in
the 1990s.
The EU deal allows Mrs Merkel to challenge other global players to match the
EU’s commitment — with the extra pledge that Europe will go further and cut
emissions by up to 30 per cent if others are prepared to follow suit.
The nuclear option is fast disappearing with diminishing supplies of uranium. The US with 90% imported and France with 100% imported are the most exposed. The 40% production deficit is currently met by ex-weapons highly-enriched uranium, a little MOX and inventories, expected to be gone by 2012. Production peaks in gas in 2020 and coal in 2050 will save us from excessive climate change, but the world into economic collapse. The need for renewables is correct, but the scenario is misunderstood. When the lights go out in France, Mr Chirac will have retired!
John Busby, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk UK
1) This is great news for the future of the planet and
2) I severely hope that CO emissions are not rising as Carbon Monoxide is highly poisonous. Do you mean Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?
Ben, York,
Actually, aircraft create higher emissions when the engines are at higher power settings (takeoff and cruise), than when at lower power settings (taxi and landing).
All vehicles, trains and autos included, create relatively higher emissions when accelerating, even more so from a dead stop. How often do you hear those who point the climate change finger accusatorily at short-haul air flights also complaining about local trains or city 'stop and go' motoring?
This nuclear debate exposes the true Luddite nature of many in the environmental movement. “Reduce emissions!”, but not via “bad” nuclear power (radioactive waste) or “bad” dams (protect fish and indigenous peoples). Instead of using now these existing, low-emission technologies, we are scolded to wait for some future nirvana of hydrogen fuel cells (hydrogen, apparently, lying around huge piles just waiting for someone to invent a use for the stuff).
Gerald, Atlanta,
Power requirements will be fulfilled by a combination of technologies but with a greater emphasis towards non fossil fuels, i.e., nuclear & others. However, wind & solar are not real full-time options....remember, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.....but the tide always pulls - regardless of the weather, day & night.
Phil, Preston,
Planes create most of their emissions while taxiing, taking off, and landing, the bit in between is by comparison relatively low. Meaning that for the distance travelled a short haul flight is more polluting than long haul.
Tax has gone up over 30% under this administration; the UK is now one of the dearest places on the planet to employ people. So how will the Country survive with the 2 major parties wanting to outbid one another and find more creative ways to tax.
A quote attributed to John Redwood today – “Mars is warming up as well, yet no 4x4 have been detected”
Ian, Wokingham,
It is interesting to me that neither the reporters nor their editors seem to know the difference between CO and CO2. That rather significant error doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the accuracy of the rest of the piece.
Amy Mack, New York, NY, USA
John in Dublin said it all: "scientific 'opinion' blames fossil fuels for global warming". Scientifis 'fact' is another issue.
William, Birmingham, AL
Jack Kingston - apparently you also do not believe in taking out insurance for your house/car? Hedging against the possibility of drastic climate change by shelling out some cash now is far preferable to dealing with future global economic melt down (pun intended) if global warming turns out to be for real.
Michael, London,
Perhaps Joe Kingston there should wait decades, doing nothing to contribute, just to say i told you so! Risking the possibility that the experts may actually be right this time. It concerns me as a young citizen that saving the planet should be a economic concern, how wrong are our priorities!?
Aaron Lang, Leicester, England
It is interesting to note that a former US Presidential Candidate is driving this debate after receiving and Oscar from Hollywood which generally leans left and is not exactly scientific in its orientation. I expected Gore to declare for another run by now but it is still early or maybe he is making too much money, having too much fun being a celebrity to go back into the ring and duke it out yet again. Undoubtedly mankind, the messy creature that he is, fouls the nest once again as he always has done.
I say lets go nuclear and run around in loin cloths while listening to our i-pods - now that is progress !
Mark, Baltimore, MD
How can I worry about Global Warming when I'm still nervous about Global Freezing which the gloom and doom merchants promoted in the pre-Internet 70s? Remember they predicted that by 2000 the world would be suffering a calamitous famine? Well, I'm still waiting. I'm also waiting for the Y2K bug to strike. Surely, those experts who predicted the sky would fall at the end of the millenium couldn't have been wrong? When the Global Warming/Climate Change predictions are revealed as a massive fraud it will be interesting to see how many trillions (in any currency) has been wasted and who made massive fortunes out ot scamming wide eyed believers. As the West becomes secularised Climate/Nature is the new religion and fanatical 'true believers" call for the heads and tongues of heretics who refuse to accept it. I wonder when gutless governments who have signed on to this nonsense will introduce brainwashing for those scientists and citizens who are now labelled "deniers" . It's Orwell's 1984.
Jack Kingston, Melbourne , Australia
The amount of ill-informed comments coming from the USA contributers on this topic is as shocking as it is tragic. Its like been forced to listen to FOX news at an airport when you cant change the channel. Its always spin politics for these people. These self-proclamined "experts" inform us of cycles of global warming and cooling as if now theres nothing to worry about. Yet not one of them has the required qualifications to comment with any authority. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Its true there have been periods of global warming and cooling but the fact is the OVERWHELMING scientific opinion blames runaway consumption of fossil fuels during the 20th century i.e we are adding fuel to the flames.
Oh and least i be accused of being a socialist liberal, i actually have a degree in the subject.
Its insulting listening to loudmouths trying to convince everyone they wrong because the heard twisted comments on FOX news etc etc....yawn!!!
john, dublin, ireland
I agree with Joe Blow
Not all Environnmentalists want to go 'Back to Nature': there are a few sensible ones too:
www.ecolo.org
Stephen Stretton, Cambridge, UK
While global warming is real, the claims man is behind it are farcical. Measurements show that, along with the leveling off of previously increasingsolar irradiance, so too the observed period of warming on the earth AND Mars is flattening out. It turns out that a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide from .3% to .4% really is a change from nearly nothing to almost nothing after all. Besides, scientists, probably paid to do so by PETA, now are saying that it's methane (from ruminating beef cattle) which is the real problem, not necessarily carbon dioxide. Good thing, because the only true path to zero carbon output (offsets are nothing more than a scam for fools) is to stop breathing - you're welcome to try that for a month and let the rest of us know how it works out for you after.
Greg, San Diego, CA USA
Funny those who say we need to cut down on carbon emissions are against everything that could possibly replace fossil fuels - will Europe's greens really let this come to pass? Though there are many reactors in Europe, I thought environmentalism would preclude nuclear projects there - maybe I'm wrong and, if so, great!
Here in the US they insist we get off fossil fuel but nuclear is too dangerous and produces dangerous waste; wind is ugly, makes noise and kills birds; hydro power is out for obvious reasons, solar farms take up too much space and are ugly - someone objects to every alterative, leaving us back where we started.
Greg, San Diego, CA USA
Embracing clean, safe and reliable nuclear power in hopes of altering the climate is doing the right think for the wrong reason.
FRANK B OUDKIRK, ROSWELL, USA/GEORGIA
Nothing to do with nuclear, but has anyone noticed that every comment that denounces the possibility of global warming has been american? Interesting considering the country is responsible for 1/4 of the worlds pollution. The point really, whether global warming exists or not, is can we afford to take the chance and do nothing? Unless America has secretly been building another habitable planet elsewhere.
Nick, manchester,
The difficult waste (transuranic) can be used to generate
merchant electricity in transmutation facilities powered by
proton beams. The key technology for this is the lead-
bismuth eutectic moderated reactor design developed
for naval propulsion in the former USSR, which they shared
with us after detente. Safe by design: negative thermal
coefficient of reactivity (overheating automatically damps the reaction). Cutting off the proton beam caused the neutron flux to go down in a few minutes. Spent light water reactor fuel could be reburned (after decladding and recladding) in
CANDU fast-shuffle reactors (off the shelf) as a preliminary step to increase efficiency. Because this will soon be technically and economically feasible spent high level wastes should NOT be placed in non-retrievable geologic storage (asking for trouble long-term and a waste of a key energy source within our own lifetimes). BTW, CANDU reactors can
burn unenriched uranium, which says a lot about Iran!
Lewis Goudy, Belen, NM, USA
For those that find it amusing that if not for socialist-liberal and their nutty ideas about anything, the conservatives would have nothing to gripe at is quite false and egotistical. Surely, socialist-liberals give themselves way to much credit for contributing essentially nothing to the general welfare of the world. Socialist-liberals give themselves to much credit for doing nothing but whine and complain that a non-entity, the earth, is actually suffering some sort of physical pain from what we do. More gibberish from ignorant idealogues. What would the world be without socialist-liberals or the leftist ideology in general? A happier place where real ideas and solutions to problems would be addressed and taken care of. Where doing for yourself leads to better improvement of our lives, self-esteem, self-determination, independence, and ultimately to persevere over any challenge. Conservatives are optimists, not apathetic, cynical pessimists that complain about how bad life is.
Martin, San Diego, USA CA
Existing nuclear power plants produce "waste" which in US is now stored at the sites of those power plants in cooling basins. This is not "waste" but, in conjunction with breeder reactors, is an incredible source of clean electricity. In the US this "waste" contains enough electricity to satisfy 1500 years of clean electricity generation, incuding 3% annual growth. To realize this potential and at the same time solve the problem of storage of "spent nuclear fuel" it is necessary to build breeder reactors which produce electricity and at the same time transform "spent nuclear fuel" into new fuel for conventional reactors. These breeder reactors exist in Russia, Japan, and France; in the US our democrats under Carter killed the Clinch River Breeder Reactor that was already under construction in the late 1970's.
Marc Jeric, Ph.D., Las Vegas, , Nevada, USA
What a Hoot!
They blocked America using it's own: Oil, Oil Shale, Coal, Natural Gas, building new dams for hydro-electric power, windmills because they kill birds. Now they have pushed us right into what they didn't want, because it is the most dangerous and evil of all....
The European Union is going Nuclear!
Thank you, Environmentalists!
Nuclear power has allowed France to be snotty to the rest of the world for decades. Energy independence can do that for you.
shatto, Concord, The Bay Area, California, U.S.A.
"The waste produced is stored for 50 years and can be re-processed. "
Yes, the waste with the highest radio activity comes in "pellets" that are very small, and extremely heavy (they need several diesel engines here to move one small load of them). But that's just the ones with the highest radioactivity. There is a LOT more waste with a lower radioactivity, and I can guarantee you, that lot doesn't fit into a gymnasium.
Britain is not ready for nuclear power, because the attitude here is that profitability is more important than safety. I live next to Heysham, and up the road is Sellafield. Both have had way too many "accidents".
Starling, Lancaster,
Here is the big problem. Only one accident is needed to make a large area of earth uninhabitable for hundreds of years, just like the area around chernobyl. What is 100% reliable. Nothing that I know of. What of terrorism as well?
Corruption in construction of nuclear plants? Could that increase the danger? Think of the big dig in Massachusetts. What to do with the waste? Not in MY BACKYARD.
I worry that contractors these days will do anything to make a buck and things such as falsifying welding records, using substandard concrete and other materials may make problems more likely than in the past.
Rob, East Longmeadow, MA
Global warming and it's effects may or may not come to fruition. But, what's wrong with leaving the world better and cleaner than we found it? We can still be a capitolist society/world and reap great rewards from new energy sources.
I don't understand how anyone benefits from plumes of smoke billowing into the air. I live in a very spread out midwest city. Small things like smart urban planning, and yes, alternative (nuclear) power can make a difference.
It's quite unrealistic to think that that all dirty energy could be phased out at this point, but why not diversify and spend some money on researching new options? We didn't just stumble accross a lump of coal and decide it would light the city streets....
R DeVries, Omaha, Nebraska, US
We in the USA have been held hostage by the environmental crowd for far too long. Drill for oil? No way. Build nuke plants? Hell no. Burn coal? Again, no way. Wind power? Nope...Cronkite and Kennedy saw to it to put the kibosh on a proposed wind farm since it would spoil their view. Hypocrites one and all. Seems to me that if relying on mid-East oil is a threat to national security, then the president has the right to issue an executive order to start building standardized nuke plants to reduce our dependence on oil. And to hell with the enviro nuts.
Joe Blow, Anytown, USA
I agree. Environmentalism is fodder for empty souls who can't deal with reality (Western nations are becoming less polluting all the time due to the improvements of technology), and who use computer models of reality to persuade people that reality is more like a computer model than what it really is -- complex. PETA has recently stated that animals put out more carbon emissions than all industrial efforts. And the biggest polluters are -- guess what? Volcanoes. The EU's actions will have no effect on the world.
MT, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Unreal!! Europe is going to "save the world"??? I think their efforts are a moot point given the pollution coming out of China, India, and the US. I thought we were going into an ice age back in the 70's??? Now, we're overheating just 3 decades later??? A complete 360 in 3 decades??? I think I'll keep driving my SUV that gets 14 miles a gallon. Let me know when this is all over.
Mike, Pittsburgh, PA, US
It is a terrible reflection that almost twenty years after the fall of Communism, people can still be whipped up into a frenzied belief in something that not only lacks a sound scientific basis, but also actively vilifies the unbelievers, branding them as heretics.
I wonder how long it will take for such dissenters to be rouded up by Al Gore's Thought Police and burned at the stake for their evils...
Lacoon, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
I wish that some of the idiots out there would do a little research before posting something that shows their ignorance. Quit blaming George Bush for not signing on to the Kyoto nonsense. Kyoto was the brainchild of Clinton and Gore, and even with a Democrat-majority under their belt, the US Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto with well over 90% of the Senators voting 'NO'. You Bush-haters really amaze me.
Joe Blow, Anytown, USA
Mr. Barr,
Nuclear power on it's own IS too cheap to meter. Costs are regulatory as the people costs more than the fuel. It does not need "breaks" to survive. The costs to build are very large but actual generating costs are the lowest of any conventional generation.
Huge amonts of waste??????? Check your facts before you make that statement. Fuel is very small and can be contained in small containers. Problem is it has to stay there for a long time.
Releases? Again check your facts. Releases are extremely small if they happen and easily mitigated.
Wendall, Overland Park,
Fist, weuns gonna be friz tuh deat, an nauw weuns gonna fry cuz thar be CO2 auwt thar!
Good Lord! Has anyone paid any attention to the report that Mars, which, as far as is known, has no gas guzzlers and no industries, seems also to be warming up and its icecaps diminishing? Before we destroy our civilizations(?) by capping this and forbidding that, hadn't someone better check out old Sol and see just what that heat producer is up to? Bah!
JamesOD, Kawaguchi, Japan
my bad - it's METHANE that comes from cow-farts...
fred, borculo,
NO MORE COW FARTS!!!
they produce TONS of CO2... nobodies out to stop them...
fred, borculo,
It is the height of vanity for mortal human beings to think that they can alter global climate in any significant way .
Such egotism!
Bill on the Hill, Tehachapi, U.S.A./California
Biofuels (ethanol) requires about 1.7 gallons of energy equivalent gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Plus the crowding out of uses for corn, palm oil,etc as food and the destruction of rain forests to prodce it shows its extreme counterproductiveness.. New generation nuclear may be an answer (partially).
Bill, Charlotte, NC
The Illuminati of the Western World have decreed "Environmentalism" as their new religion and "Global Warming" as their most sacred sacrement. Like all religions, their creed is based on legend and faith. Scientists aren't likely to discus the scientific virtures of Christianity, and neither are most scientists permitted to open their mouths and cry out against the mountain of evidence to disprove "Global Warming". It is a given that the "left" is out to destroy capitalism and what better way than with the innocent sounding cry of "Save the Earth"?
Clement R. Knorr, Tucson, Arizona,
College science courses explained the constantly changing earth condition including climate change. There has been numberous cycles of Global Warming and Global Cooling over the last several hundred million years....nothing strange and unusual about it at all.And, I do not know if man has the ability to change the natural cycles of climate change or not.But, the point is, I do not think anyone knows for sure.So, why is everyone getting so bent-out-of-shape over it?I really don't mind if we err on the side of caution and slowly start to control carbon emissions,but I'm not going to moan,groan,and weep if we don't!I wonder what's really behind all of the media attention to the climate in the recent year of two?
Ken Mills, Austin, USA/Texas
The trouble with nuclear is 3 things,.
1. It produces huge amounts of nuclear waste that there is nowhere to store. Nothing can be done with it. It always winds up being piled up next to where people live.
2. Then the "accidental" releases of radioactive emissions and water.
3. Nuclear has to have government subsidies and breaks to function. It is not cost effective. To function , it has to have regulations concerning safety and health lowered.
People who are for nuclear usually dont live near it.
phillip barr, hobbs,
Some of these comments are most amusing. If we did not have socialist-liberals, conservatives would have less to laugh about when we get home from work each day. We certainly can find no humor in the doom and gloom of the daily news reporting from the liberal, mainstream media. The socialist-liberals and their friends in the mainstream media are afraid of everything. Ha ha ha.
Dr Bubba, Flyover, United States
Fortunately the American distrust of government- of any party- stands in the way of some of the environmental hoopla. For the Europeans who are used to knuckling under to any government this is nothing special. When the politicans say "JUMP" they say "How High?"
The hysteria about global warming is being used to advance the notion that people like Al Gore and Laura David really know what is good for the rest of us and we're just to blind to see it. When we are being taxed out of our vacation trips ( Yes, that is a green proposal in Britain!) and SUV;s they will be buying carbon offsets from Gore's shell company so that they can continue their enjoyable lifestyle
PD, New City, NY
What I find interesting is this. There has been one accident in the history of commercial nuclear power in the US and no one died. Yet this was used as an excuse to stop all production of new plants. Let's apply that logic to any other industry. We would have no industry becuase people continously die in transportation, mining, and manufacturing. Hell your fat ass is getting heart disease right now while you sit and read this. There 435 reactors in the world today and no problems. 103 in the US producing 20% of our electricity. Please keep the USA from going 100% nuclear thousands of mining and oil executives depend on you for their mansions and yachts on the backs of the stupid working class. Here are more stats while you ponder the fate of our greedy fossil fuel execs.
Nuclear - 1.8 cents a kwh with no co2
Coal - 1.7 cents kwh biggest man made co2 producer on earth.
Natural gas - 8.0 cents kwh and rising!
Oil not even and option
Carlos, Hudson, USA WI
I'm all for nuclear power in the U.S. The idiot Greenie's obstruct anything to create energy. They would have us all on horseback, oop's horses are not native to N. America, I guess we walk to work.
jim, jupiter, usa/fl
What are the names of the ten leading companies that are set to build the plants and benefit from the increased use of nuclear energy?
Sam, Venice, USA CA
I'm 56 years old. I know what I've seen. I was a nuclear safety engineer in the 70's and as the U.S workload was being decreased by environmentalists (No Nucs in U.S.) my company found work in other countries. (Taiwan, Spain, Europe in general). As I was training foriegn engineers and certifying their power plants, in the 70s/80s, I saw repeated greenie demonstrations on T.V. shouting no Nucs in U.S.!! These protests were in France, Spain, Germany, etc.... Today France has 87%+ of it's domestic power from Nucs. U.S has less than 9% Nuc based energy, and dropping. Environmentalists are the epitome of useful idiots or just simply socialist. Oh, by the way, check out who gets benefits of carbon credits (Al Gore and a host of socialist countries). Great scam.
Daniel, Norman, OK/USA
What am I suppose to think about EU? I read EU papers, listen to cable, read books and I very rarely ever come across an opinion from the area that accurately portrays facts as they actually are here in the US. The UK and French papers and TV are absolutely the worse. It's hard to image that my country of 300 Million extremely diverse,energetic,talented,charismatic,innovative,charitable,good people and institutions that lead the world in just about any category you want to name never has anything decent,accurate,or good said about it. I believe that says more about EU, UK, and France than it does about us. For instance, I do not believe anyway in Europe understands the goodness and idealism of Pres. Bush. He is an extremely good,decent,honest idealist who believes that goodness, freedom of choice, and freedom from oppression is not only the right thing, but a duty of America. And, I believe that he is correct. it sadness me to see how far the European Continental has sunk.
Ken Mills, Austin, USA/Texas
Some of these comments are pretty amusing. First of all you don't get a " nuclear winter" by producing nuclear energy. The waste produced is stored for 50 years and can be re-processed. All the waste ever produced in the US could fit in a gymnasium. The electricity and fossil fuel used to mine uranium is miniscule compared to the amounts of energy generated by it. Look at it this way, it takes 500 pounds of uranium (250kg) to run an aircraft carrier for 10 years! How much diesel does a tanker use just for one trip? something like 60,000 gallons at 8 lbs. a gallon so half a million pounds of diesel to go from Saudi Arabia to Japan vs 500 lbs uranium to travel the world in a carrier for ten years. Of course you can always put up windmills on your carrier to propel it the green way but have you ever tried picking your feet up to put them on the ceiling?
Carlos, Hudson, USA WI
If the countries who had the sun were provided with solar facilities they would be self sufficient; it is all about money not about the planet.
Wind, wave and solar power have had loads of research done, but until it becomes compulsory no one will take it seriously.
Trying to obtain these things at a reasonable cost is also a problem, until manufactured in greater quantities.
I use a solar radio and wind up torch, solar power for my water and would like solar voltaic but cannot find a non rip off merchant.
There are also many heads of water in this country which would do what they are doing in the lake district, using it to power electricity in small areas. Not enormous ones that blight the landscape and damage the natural flow of things.
steel, Kettering, Northants
I work in the Nuclear Power Business my entire life.
Nothing comes without a price, whether economic, enviromental, whatever. Power is one of these. Truthfully, it is "how do you want to take your poison". Fumes/gases from a fossil fuel plant continously emitting or condensed radioactive waste. I always have thought condensed radioactive waste was a more manageable problem, as an engineer.
Global waming: my opinion is that man has an effect on nature. Modern times, the effect has been greater. But I have seen very positive things...where I live the wildlife lvel are at record highs due to impovement is water quality and hunting restrictions. I see deer, wild turkey, hawks, possum, ground hogs, etc. each day driving to work. As far as global warmimg goes, the earth has natural cycles...we are in a naturl heating cycle. I believe we could be aggravating that cycle but I haven't seen a weather model yet that can predit the weather neaxt week, let alone a decade from now.
Hyman Rickover, Paducah, KY USA
"Save the planet" rings about as true as those annoying car ads which tell me that I can "save" money by spending $50,000 on a car I don't need. And with the costs to implement "global warming" protections, no one will be able to afford a car, except those in power....Al Gore will soon be able to spend $50,000 a year to heat his castle, and his media toadies will still have their vacation homes.
Heather, rolling hills, California
What alarmists! Weren't we just panicked about an ice age recently? And warnings about population? Has anything these alarmists projected ever come true? Seems more like a secular religion than science. Have fun kids!
Barbara, Los Angeles, California
I have an idea - lets have a gobal program to kill half the termites in the world in 5 year. That would completely offset the human production of the deadly CO2 gases that is destroying the world. If we killed all the termites we could probably send us back to the Ice Age of 40,000 years ago.
John Zemitis, Chino, CA / USA
Since it seems that everyone is now listening to the prophets of Global Warming it is only fair that I be the voice that cries out about the coming of Global Freezing. In ten years time both prophecies will be true. It is what we call the changing seasons.
Justin, LUBBOCK, US, TX
The environmentalists' opposition to nuclear power puts the lie to their whole global warming crusade. For them, feigned environmentalism is just their way of attacking their real enemy, capitalism.
If the auto companies developed an SUV that emitted zero CO2, the "environmentalists" would still be up in arms.
David, Woodstock, GA, USA
Nuclear power makes since in that the by-products, thou unpleasant and long lasting, are in one place and under supervision. CO2 is dispersed and in the atmosphere blowing around the world.
The US is (supposedly) the big emitter of CO2 in part because if you try to build a nuclear plant or hydroelectric dam the Greenies will raise hell. They say build windmills etc.. Of course if someone builds a wind mill farm big enough to produce useful amounts of energy the greenies are unset and want it shut down because somebody found a dead yellow speckled warbler near by. Same thing would happen if you built a tide or wave power plant.
Now the latst thing I hearing about is population reduction...
Who gets to shot who?
Bruce, Mt Pleasant, SC, USA
Some interesting views by many of you. I guess the point at this time is to acknowledge that global warming is a real issue, an issue that we must start to tackle. The first small steps are being taken and with that the only mature viable energy source other than fossile fuels is Nuclear. This may not be the best option, but given were we are today the only option. Eventually private enterprise will step up and provide more economically friendly solutions we can all buy into. Economics is the measure of our continued success and will be in the forseeable future. It is in our nature to consume, it is down to government legislation to curb our hunger and privite industry to give us moraly friendly alternatives.
areth, Pwllheli, UK / Gwynedd
Britain is in the grip proper of the Illuminati
and bilderbergers. we are all doomed!!
David Greenwood, Bacup, UK
"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe. "
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Global warming? Nucleur waste? Lead Poisioning?
Asbestos? Waste oil seeping into the ground table?
Uranium, oil, lead, asbestos, didn't these elements
come out of the earth, the ground table?
God has got to be amused; as much as I am!
Cicero, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
The adoption of nuclear powered energy production in a bid to prevent 'global warming' - another own goal by the lunatic greens. Worst yet, will be the scramble to produce biofuels which will be supplied by tropical countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil, at the expense of rain forest habitat. Don't you just love the idiocy of ecofundamentalism!
Les Saunders, edinburgh,
And who will build the majority of these nuclear powerstations ..Why the French of course .. In much the same way as they have hi-jacked the european aviation industry.
They are world champions at using state supported industries to snap up European business through long term strategies designed purely in the national interest.
andy James, Lyon, France
you people are CUTE!!! all with your unsubstantiated views drawn from the left, right and middle of cnn blurbs. all i know is that fusing derersomething and tridium is 95% less cool than fusing deteriumthing and helium threee. its also a bit of a silvery magical bullet. so if nasa can ever pull its head out of its ass and figure out that the moon might have some financial value, maybe we will be going somewhere. anyways, helium, moon, fusion is what im betting on. so when i drive my 12 cilinder biturbo something or other, i know that i will be expediting the death of fossil fuels. global warming or not, that is on the way and in the end, it will all come back to economics. you people are amusing but really just annoying. stop acting like you all know what is going on and just conform to economic trends and everything well turn out peachy.
cheers to private enterprize and blabla to the gov.
conor colwell, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Theyve been dumping nuclear waste in my town for decades now, and Im afraid to drink my water. I order cases of bottled water because there may be unsafe levels of contamination in local water.
Nuclear waste is not renewable. It takes immense amounts of fossil fuel to extract uranium from the Earth. Then, to enrich uranium for reactors takes energy off the grid as well, typically from a coal-fired plant.
Conserved energy is the cheapest form, and renewables like wind provide a greater return on investment.
In fact, no one in America is putting their venture capital in nuclear. Rather, truly green energy like wind and geothermal are market leaders.
Terrance, Barnwell, SC
One small step and all that. Not surprising that good old George Bush and his oil driven country have not ratified or even considered Kyoto. Now there is blatent stupidity in all its Human glory. Nuclear power is energy control personified. At last some common sense has landed on the desk of politicians who actually listened. Well in Europe at least.
Another former Nuclear Engineer.
Kevin Baker, Victoria, Canada
nuclear power a green choice??? how about 10,000 year pollution. whats with the comericals claming this as a green choice.
jess, frederiction, canada
Gee, that's great. Man is responsible for about 4% of the greenhouse gases. Now we exclude China, India, Eastern Europe and the developing countries. Boy, with the rest of us cutting our output by 20%.... that will save the planet ! What mass stupidity. Oh by the way Bob, about those Martian ice caps, everyone knows the cause...George Bush of course !
Steven , Florham Park, NJ
Gee, and I used to think there were just commies out there!
I am pleased to know there are thinking people out there.
A former nuclear engineer.
Robert, Charleston, Soviet Republic of SC USA
I am amused that so many humans think they can control nature. This planet goes through warming periods and cooling periods with or without mans puny help. Man is definitely the most arrogant of all the beasts on this planet.
Val Maynard, Heber City, Ut
"Battle to save the planet"?! Ridiculous hyperbole - the planet is not currently at risk, although it may well be consumed by the Sun in 4-5 billion years. It has survived massive climate change throughout its existence, and will do so again.
Faustino, Brisbane, Australia
I already forsee the negative global press the US will be receiving over not agreeing to the commitment, because it would require an ammendment to the constitution for any external body to have "legally enforceable" powers over the US.
Lexicon, Duluth,
If man is to blame for climate change on Earth, what is causing the polar ice caps on mars from melting?
I guess it's time to pass a climate treaty for Mars. Those Martians obviously need to cut back on their driving and install solar panels. But remember .. only advanced industrial nations on Mars will be affected. Developing nations will be exempt.
Bob, Greensburg, PA
Environmentalist will come to embrace the nuclear power industry. Nothing has the potential to ease the coming energy crunch that nuclear offers. No, it's not perfectly safe, but nuclear needs to be a part of the discussion.
Dave Rohlman, Grand Junction, CO
Thank the No-Nukes crowd for the damage they now blame us for. If they had just been ignored in the sixties, today we could have been enjoying clean, renewable nuclear power for a generation. We could have had unlimited power for electric cars and myriad other needs. Millions of cancer deaths would have been prevented.
Ironically, we are letting the same group dictate what we should do today. With wind and solar costing almost 100 times as much as nuclear, they want us to live in the dark and drive rickshaws to work.
Rome was destroyed from within.
Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejjo, California, USA
What a strange world we live in.
So nuclear power is now part of the solution, not the problem.
Maybe twenty years from now, we'll discover that climate change is actually good for the planet.
gb, Austin, USA
If we all start using eco bulbs then I suggest we all start using night vision goggles, because the eco bulbs do not give out enough light. The box told me that it gave out the same level of light. The box was WRONG, I tried them. The bulbs were useless, I could barely see to the other side of the room. It could save you money on your bills but you would spend the rest off your life in and out of hospital because you don’t have fluorescent walls and furniture. Save yourself a trip to the hospital use normal bulbs.
peter h, london,
I live a few miles away from the biggest (and leakiest, I'm sure, emergency shutdowns and wotnot all over the place) nuclear power station in Europe. Most of the time I try to forget about it ...
Something tells me that France proposed nuclear power because they've got a massive number of nuclear power stations and they don't want to shut them down (but I could be wrong :P).
Starling, Lancaster, UK
Globally, CO2 comprises only 4% of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Of that 4%, mankind's CO2 impact is half that of termites.
Is anyone lobbying the termites to have them reduce their output?
Jon , Los Angeles, USA
For once, the French have it right. Even if there were no concern about CO2 emissions, a different solution to base load generation than fossil fuel plants will be required in the near future because our fossil resources are finite, and much of the resource is located in politically unstable areas. Conservation and energy efficiency can't solve that. If electric cars are widely adopted, the world's electric generating capacity will need to be tripled to meet transport demand. There is no other feasible and cost effective alternative to nuclear power for base load generation on the scale required. Hydro is largely already tapped, wind, wave, and solar aren't scheduleable, ie aren't available on demand 24/7. The grid would collapse if they were called on to provide more than a supplemental role. Base load must be supplied by a 24/7 scheduleable method. The only viable alternative to fossil combustion for that is nuclear.
Amy Holloway, Atlanta, Georgia USA
Forget global warming - think instead of distributed "alternative" energy sources, using whatever works best in each region. Cut transmission losses! Reduce the area effected by a single plant being down; reduce impacts of storms on power outages. Reduce oil imports - improve homeland security. Expand a profitable market for "alternative" energy. We've never gotten to the future by standing still.
KL, Hanover, New Mexico USA
No film, whether it's "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Global Warming Swindle", can provide a full and balanced picture of the actual science involved in determining what is really happening with the planet.
I recommend reading a book that is solidly based on the science, such as John Houghton's "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing".
Neal, Munich, Germany
Global warming is the biggest con trick perpetrated on the taxpayers so far, all the information is available for all to read if only we would. The only thing I could never understand was why the experts were pushing this nonsense in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, after watching the brilliant Channel 4 documentary I could kick myself for not realising it was just plain old greed.
That documentary should be shown every week for a year
Graham McKenna, Burntwood, England
Well, of course the only way to save the planet would be thru population control - then reduction. Jacques Cousteau understood this long time ago.
PS. Did not Germany only a few years ago set about a plan to end it's nuclear energy production, and to dismantle it's existing nuclear nuclear facilities?
gh, LA, USA/ CA
"The commitment of all 27 member nations is legally enforceable by the European Court of Justice."
That was the most interesting portion of this article to me. What mechanism of enforcement has the European Court of Justice? Is it that they can withhold from nations certain monetary benefits of EU membership, or expell them from the Union? If that's the case then shan't only the poorest EU members -those who benefit the most from membership- have to worry about following through on the pledge?
More improbably, but the question still occurs to me, does this "European Court of Justice" have executive authority over a police or military force?
Joe, North Carolina,
Environmentalists are like watermelons, green on the outside but red inside. Let's have them ride the bicycles.
Jeff Neal, Atlanta, Georgia/USA
The lowest cost form of carbon reduction is energy efficiency. The bold thinking needed to really make deep inroads into carbon emissions is still missing but aleast the EU has taken a good first step,
Leaders in Australia have proposed a bold proposal to outlaw many incandescent lamps - a 100 year old technology that uses 4 times more energy than newer fluorescent and metal halide lighting technology.
At a time that the EU is putting pressure on Iran not to reprocess nuclear fuel, it is hyprocritical to be pushing nuclear power to fight global warming. France has the third largest nuclear generation capacity and third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Are they related? Of course they are.
Global warming or nuclear winter? Is this really our only options? I am hoping for more visionary leadership
Jon McHugh, Orangevale, US
An ant makes so many holes in its nest that the termite nest finally collapses. We humans are as dumb as ants. We keep going and going. Lets stop it. We should halve CO emmissions by 2012. The rest of the world can still think about it
philip, brussels,
Nuclear waste? Contain the easy stuff and propel the rest into space.
Andy, London, UK
CO is carbon monoxide. CO2 is carbon dioxide. If you don't understand the difference you have no business making policy recomendations on energy.
S. McClellan, Kewaunee, US
Did anyone record that program - channel 4`s -- GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE ???? I would appreciate some assistance to obtain a recording whether VCR or DVD.
Fred, phoenix, arizona usa
Yay! Nuke plants... they have no carbon footprint, just 10,000 years of lethal poison hidden in a hole somewhere.
Great stuff, although after watching channel 4`s "Global warming swindle".
I could not care less.
We have got coal lets burn it.
Climate prediction models my backside.........!
Rob, West Bromwich, England
Anyone who seriously thinks that our present and future energy requirments can be met by green methods is living in cloud cookoo land. No amount of windmills, wave power and any other green power sources will only scratch at the surface of our needs. Nuclear power, with all its inherent problems is still the only option to guarantee enough energy in the future - and changing light bulbs - get real Mrs. Merkel.
E. Armstrong, Consett, England