You are on page 1of 7

Environmental justice Kritik

Nuclear energy is inevitable that means the only question is


how and where
Simit Patel April 10 2012 Simit Patel is a trader focused on investment
opportunities related to foreign exchange, precious metals, energy, and Internet
technology. He has been working in the financial services industry for over 10 years
and is the founder of InformedTrades,The Inevitability of the Nuclear Age
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Inevitability-of-theNuclear-Age.html
I am firmly convinced that one of the best investment opportunities in the
world today is in nuclear power. In this article I will discuss why that is, and how
one can go about making such investments. The first point to be made in any
discussion of a coming nuclear renaissance is that peak oil is real. In other words,
oil production will continue to decline over the next couple decades, at a
time when population and energy demand are rising. This creates a
situation in which the energy market is being hit on both ends: on the
supply side, oil is in decline, and on the demand side, more people results in a
greater demand for energy. It is this basic economic situation that sets the
stage for nuclear power to be an outstanding investment opportunity. The
chart below illustrates the situation with oil production via Exxon Mobil Meanwhile,
here is the projected energy demand over the next few decades (via the
International Energy Agency) So the next logical question is what can we use
to close the gap? There are two criteria that need to be mentioned here:
Baseload fuel. First is that the world needs baseload energy -- meaning energy
that can be turned on at any time, on demand. This immediately rules out
much in the form of solar and wind, which are not yet capable of providing
baseload power; they require the sun and wind to be shining. There are
some who argue that combining solar and wind properly will allow us to mix
and match energy sources, thus achieving the equivalent of baseload energy; for
instance, we can draw from wind when the sun is down, and vice versa. I find this
to be very idealistic and not too realistic; the logistical challenges here are
significant, and the assumptions that Mother Nature will cooperate with
us even if we design adaptive systems are a bit too much, in my opinion. The
simple fact of that matter is that storing solar and wind power is a challenge that
has been with us for a long, long time -- and in fact it is perhaps the primary reason
solar and wind have been such a small part of our energy mix for so long. We need
energy to be available when we want -- it's that simple. Technological breakthroughs
may enable solar and wind to meet this requirement, but for the time being, there is
no such breakthrough in sight. Nuclear power, on the other hand, can provide
baseload energy, as can coal and natural gas. Energy density. Energy also
needs to be cheap and scalable. In other words, we need energy systems
that can service a population of 7 billion and growing, and we need this
energy to be cheap. In terms of the physics of energy, what we are really looking
for here is energy density: the more dense a source of energy is, the cheaper
and more scalable it will ultimately end up being. Energy journalist Robert

Bryce has an article on this subject entitled "Get Dense" which explains the
situation very succinctly. The table below, courtesy of The Daily Reckoning offers a
comparison of energy density by various sources of energy. Uranium is the fuel for
nuclear power. It is clearly the winner here, and by a very wide margin. So,
because it is the most dense source of energy, it will prove to be the cheapest
and most scalable. And because it can provide baseload power, it does not have
the limitations that many renewable energy sources do.

The current placement of nuclear power plants is based off


environmental racism theres only a risk we make the
placement better because theres no one living thousands of
kilometers offshore
Phil Hubbard January 06
NIMBY by Another Name? A Reply to Wolsink http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804422
The conclusion to my paper on the racist roots of opposition to a planned asylum
centre states that it should not be read as any sort of definitive statement on
NIMBYism, and merely marks out a possible trajectory for future explorations of
community mobilization against unwanted local facilities. In that sense, I fully
welcome Maarten Wolsink's critical commentary, and am gratified that he agrees
that moving beyond conventional explanations of NIMBY is vital if we are to perform
a 'genuine analysis' of 'environmental injustice and its racist, socio-economic and
gender-related characteristics'. I am also pleased he draws attention to a range of
locational conflicts - involving, for instance, mobile phone masts, wind farms, landfill
sites and nuclear establishments - where questions of social Othemess are
often assumed to be irrelevant but are actual highly revealing of the
underpinnings of local opposition. Yet I am simultaneously puzzled by Wolsink's
insistence on dispensing with the concept of NIMBYism on the basis that it lacks
explanatory power, is empirically unverifiable and is highly pejorative towards protestors. While I am aware others have suggested that we need to be wary when
using the language of NIMBY (Burningham 2000; Gibson 2005), Wolsink goes
somewhat further, and implies that we should not refer to instances where
communities oppose local developments as examples of NIMBYism lest it leads us to
draw erroneous conclusions.

Nuclear energy is 1/3rd the cost of alternatvies


Rod Adams May 17, 2014 Rod Adams gained his nuclear knowledge as a
submarine engineer officer and later became a SMR advocate from 1993-1999
Mark Cooper is wrong about SMRs and nuclear energy
http://atomicinsights.com/mark-cooper-wrong-smrs-nuclear-energy/
That little cylinder contained enough fuel to power a 9,000 ton submarine
carrying a crew of 150 people for 14 years, yet the active portion of the fuel was
not much heavier than I am. It provided enough power for the engines, air
conditioning, cooking, food preservation, entertainment, computers, making fresh

water from salt, scrubbing contaminants from our atmosphere, and even creating
new oxygen by splitting water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen molecules. That
magical technology was installed in both of my submarines in the early 1960s. The
almost miraculous fuel that enables that kind of performance costs about
1/3 as much as cheap natural gas in its current commercial form, even
though there are dozens of ways to substantially improve its utilization
and economic competitiveness.

Thats the biggest environmental justice concern


Lomborg 14
Lomborg March 28, 2014 Dr. Bjrn Lomborg is the Director of Copenhagen Consensus Center and Adjunct Professor
at Copenhagen Business School and conducts research into the smartest ways to improve the environment and the
world. http://stopthesethings.com/2014/03/28/bjorn-lomborg-wind-power-is-the-path-to-poverty/

According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Climate change harms the poor


first and worst. This is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have
the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies
to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this
harms the worlds poor much more. Solar and wind power was subsidized by
$60 billion in 2012. This means that the world spent $60 billion more on energy
than was needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4 billion,
the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were subsidized by another
$19 billion, with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been
used to improve health care, hire more teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.
Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up
costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average
of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EUs climate policy will
be 209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century. The
burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the worlds poor, because
the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by wellmeaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who cavalierly suggest
that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from highcost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New
Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on
gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of
their after-tax income on gasoline. Similarly, environmentalists boast that
households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by
almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50%
increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of
renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%. The poor, no surprise, have reduced their
consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced
theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more
expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now
energy poor that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy;
and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their
households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm,

because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third
leave part of their homes cold.

Allowing warming to continue perpetuates racist


inequalities
Hoerner 8Former director of Research at the Center for a Sustainable Economy, Director of Tax Policy at the
Center for Global Change at the University of Maryland College Park, and editor of Natural Resources Tax Review. He has
done research on environmental economics and policy on behalf of the governments of Canada, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Andrew received his B.A. in Economics from Cornell University and a J.D.
from Case Western Reserve School of LawANDNia Robinsformer inaugural Climate Justice Corps Fellow in 2003,
director of Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (J. Andrew, A Climate of Change African Americans, Global
Warming, and a Just Climate Policy for the U.S. July 2008, http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf)

Everywhere we turn, the issues and impacts of climate change confront us. One of the most serious environmental threats facing
the world today, climate change has moved from the minds of scientists and offices of environmentalists to the mainstream. Though
the media is dominated by images of polar bears, melting glaciers, flooded lands, and arid desserts, there is a human face to this

Climate change is not only an issue of the environment; it is also an issue of justice and
human rights, one that dangerously intersects race and class. All over the world people of
color, Indigenous Peoples and low-income communities bear disproportionate
burdens from climate change itself, from ill-designed policies to prevent it, and from side effects of the energy
story as well.

systems that cause it. A Climate of Change explores the impacts of climate change on African Americans, from health to economics
to community, and considers what policies would most harm or benefit African Americansand the nation as a whole. African
Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-

Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans


are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non- Hispanic whites. Health, housing,
economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of
climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability. African Americans are also more
vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy
price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S. Climate
Hispanic whites per capita.

Justice: The Time Is Now Ultimately, accomplishing climate justice will require that new alliances are forged and traditional
movements are transformed. An effective policy to address the challenges of global warming cannot be crafted until race and equity

warming
amplifies nearly all existing inequalities. Under global warming, injustices that are already
are part of the discussion from the outset and an integral part of the solution. This report finds that: Global

unsustainable become catastrophic. Thus it is essential to recognize that all justice is climate justice and that the struggle for racial

Sound global warming policy is


racial justice policy. Successfully adopting a sound global warming policy will do
as much to strengthen the economies of low-income communities and communities of
color as any other currently plausible stride toward economic justice. Climate policies that best serve African Americans also best
and economic justice is an unavoidable part of the fight to halt global warming.

also

economic and

serve a just and strong United States. This paper shows that policies well-designed to benefit African Americans also provide the

Climate policies that best serve African Americans and other


disproportionately affected communities also best serve global economic and
environmental justice. Domestic reductions in global warming pollution and support for such reductions in
developing nations financed by polluter-pays principles provide the greatest benefit to African
Americans, the peoples of Africa, and people across the Global South. A distinctive African
most benefit to all people in the U.S.

American voice is critical for climate justice. Currently, legislation is being drafted, proposed, and considered without any significant
input from the communities most affected. Special interests are represented by powerful lobbies, while traditional environmentalists
often fail to engage people of color, Indigenous Peoples, and low-income communities until after the political playing field has been
defined and limited to conventional environmental goals. A strong focus on equity is essential to the success of the environmental
cause, but equity issues cannot be adequately addressed by isolating the voices of communities that are disproportionately
impacted. Engagement in climate change policy must be moved from the White House and the halls of Congress to social circles,
classrooms, kitchens, and congregations. The time is now for those disproportionately affected to assume leadership in the climate
change debate, to speak truth to power, and to assert rights to social, environmental and economic justice. Taken together, these
actions affirm a vital truth that will bring communities together: Climate Justice is Common Justice. African Americans and
Vulnerability In this report, it is shown that African Americans are disproportionately affected by climate change. African Americans

The six states with the highest


African American population are all in the Atlantic hurricane zone, and are expected to experience
more intense storms resembling Katrina and Rita in the future. Global warming is
expected to increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves or extreme heat events. African
Americans suffer heat death at one hundred fifty to two hundred percent of the rate for nonHispanic whites. Seventy-one percent of African Americans live in counties in
violation of federal air pollution standards , as compared to fifty-eight percent of the white population.
Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant , as compared
to fifty-six percent of non-Hispanic whites. Asthma has strong associations with air pollution, and
African Americans have a thirty-six percent higher rate of incidents of asthma than
Are at Greater Risk from Climate Change and Global Warming Co-Pollutants

whites. Asthma is three times as likely to lead to emergency room visits or deaths for African Americans. This study finds that a
twenty-five percent reduction in greenhouse gasessimilar to what passed in California and is proposed in major federal legislation
would reduce infant mortality by at least two percent, asthma by at least sixteen percent, and mortality from particulates by at

A
disproportionate number of the lives saved by these proposed reductions
would be African American. African Americans Are Economically More Vulnerable to Disasters and Illnesses
least 6,000 to 12,000 deaths per year. Other estimates have run as high as 33,000 fewer deaths per year.

In 2006, twenty percent of African Americans had no health insurance, including fourteen percent of African American children
nearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic whites. In the absence of insurance, disasters and illness (which will increase with global
warming) could be cushioned by income and accumulated wealth. However, the average income of African American households is
fifty-seven percent that of non-Hispanic whites, and median wealth is only one-tenth that of non-Hispanic whites. Racist
stereotypes have been shown to reduce aid donations and impede service delivery to African Americans in the wake of hurricanes,
floods, fires and other climate-related disasters as compared to non-Hispanic whites in similar circumstances.

Americans Are at Greater Risk from Energy Price Shocks

African

African Americans spend thirty percent

more of their income on energy than non-Hispanic whites. Energy price increases have contributed to seventy to eighty percent of
recent recessions. The increase in unemployment of African Americans during energy caused recessions is twice that of nonHispanic whites, costing the community an average of one percent of income every year. Reducing economic dependence on
energy will alleviate the frequency and severity of recessions and the economic disparities they generate. African Americans Pay a
Heavy Price and a Disproportionate Share of the Cost of Wars for Oil Oil company profits in excess of the normal rate of profit for
U.S. industries cost the average household $611 in 2006 alone and are still rising. The total cost of the war in Iraq borne by African
Americans will be $29,000 per household if the resulting deficit is financed by tax increases, and $32,000 if the debt is repaid by
spending cuts. This is more than three times the median assets of African American households. A Clean Energy Future Creates Far
More Jobs for African Americans Fossil fuel extraction industries employ a far lower proportion of African Americans on average

Conversely, renewable electricity generation employs three to five times


as many people as comparable electricity generation from fossil fuels, a higher proportion of
whom are African American. Switching just one percent of total electricity generating
capacity per year from conventional to renewable sources would result in an additional 61,000 to 84,000
jobs for African Americans by 2030. A well-designed comprehensive climate plan achieving
emission reductions comparable to the Kyoto Protocol would create over 430,000 jobs for
African Americans by 2030, reducing the African American unemployment rate by 1.8 percentage points and raising the
compared to other industries.

average African American income by 3 to 4 percent.

SMRs both create less waste and can use nuclear waste for
fuel
SRSCRO No date last accessed 7/19/2014 The SRS Community Reuse
Organization (SRSCRO) is a 501(c) (3) private non-profit organization charged with
developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy to diversify the economy of
a five-county region, the SRSCRO Region of Georgia and South Carolina. Small
Modular Reactors http://www.srscro.org/energy-park/small-modular-reactors/
Currently, all large commercial power reactors in the United States and most in the
rest of the world are based on light water designs that is, they use uranium fuel
and ordinary water for cooling. By contrast, an emerging class of small reactors
come in widely varying designs and use a variety of fuels and cooling

systems, some can even utilize existing legacy radioactive waste as a fuel
source. They range from downsized light-water reactors to more exotic liquid
metal-cooled fast reactors, with the smallest designs beginning at a 10 MW
capacity. SMRs are different in other ways, as well. Some SMRs will be factory-built
and delivered in sealed containers ready to operate. Some are intended for
underground operation. Some will never need to be refueled, but rather can
be removed by truck and replaced like a battery. Some will produce
considerably less radioactive waste than current reactors. The modular
designs allow adding increments of capacity as power needs increase over time.
This kind of variety in nuclear power generation is largely unprecedented.

Permutation do both
A radical reorientation fails mindsets are to entrenched,
using the systems tools against itself is key
Bernie Jones, 92 Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Virginia. J.D., New York
University School of Law, HARVARD BLACKLETTER JOURNAL, Spring 1992,
In his autobiographical work on his life as an activist, Bell recognized "the
difficulty and, often the futility of trying to propagate [his] views about
racial discrimination to those who already possessed quite different, and
equally deeply held views about white entitlement." For that reason, his
protest leave from Harvard, "might annoy, but they would seldom undermine the
authority or power of those I confronted." His victories left him feeling
vindicated, that he stood up for what was right; however, they were
pyrrhic. He could not change the white power structure responsible for the
subordination of blacks that he saw all around him. In his view, and in the view of
his student followers, Harvard Law School was part and parcel of the
problem. Communities of color needed the lawyers Harvard could train;
female students of color needed mentors and role models.

A simple claim of societal or personal reorientation is


insufficient action is key
Charles Mills, John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy (Blackness Visible Essays on Philosophy
and Race Cornell Press, 1998,
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/courses/318_11/readings/mills_revisionist_ontologies_theorizing_white_s
upremacy.pdf)

So a case can easily be made that white supremacy continues to exist in a


different form, no longer backed by law but maintained through inherited
patterns of discrimination, exclusionary racial bonding, cultural stereotyping, and differential white power
deriving from consolidated economic privilege. 6 Kimberle Crenshaw emphasizes (with specific reference to the

importance of distinguishing between


"the mere rejection of white supremacy as a normative vision" and "a societal
commitment to the eradication of the substantive conditions of Black
subordination." She notes that "a society once expressly organized around white
supremacist principles does not cease to be a white supremacist society simply
by formally rejecting those principles. The society remains white supremacist in
United States, though the point is more generally valid) the

its maintenance of the actual distribution of goods and resources, status, and
prestige:'7

You might also like