Politics of Climate Change and Nuclear Energy in Changing Politics of Germany

While the world is vigorously debating the future of nuclear energy, the negotiations about the climate change have also arrived at crucial stage when world leaders will meet in Durban. This will be crucial juncture in the line of negotiations after Cancun because it will unfold new story in the already well established boxing ring of unequal level playing field.

Cancun round changed the character of the developing countries. Developing countries mitigation targets were thus delinked from multilateral legally binding agreements. Now the Kyoto protocol seems to be out of question. There seems to be no compliance mechanism being enforced in future negotiations and implementation. Cancun has marked demise of Kyoto protocol and even country like Japan where it was signed is reluctant to go ahead with its implementation. Now the mitigation targets have been annexed. After departure of Kyoto protocol we will be left with the market mechanism of the voluntary mitigation strategies. So, once again we have arrived where we have started.

In the context of financial crisis it seems difficult that west will proceed with its pledge to provide 100 million dollars to developing countries for mitigation. Official development assistance has been diverted in the name of climate change fund. Also there are other issues of intellectual property, technology transfer etc.

Debate about nuclear energy is about debates about future energy mix. The societal estimation or risks are at the centre stage whenever the ethical aspects of any technology are discussed. Legal, moral and technical aspects dominate this discussion. When German Ethics Commission recommended to German government about phasing out of nuclear energy from their country by 2022, all these issues surfaced in the matrix of public sphere.

President of Ethics Commission Prof. Matthias Kleiner maintains that our role was only to feed political decision making process by wise analysis of the situation by aiming at the well being of the society in the long run. Economic growth and social balance remain at their own place. Probabilities of assessment were based on assumptions of costs, design limits, investments in alternative technologies, human resources available in different technology fields and many other aspects of how climate change policies will take its turn.

It is necessary that society as a whole understands its goal and the ways in which these goals can be realistically attained. The test of vision of German government lies in the fact that how it creates responsible methods and mechanisms through which it can monitor the progress towards these goals. The report at the outset sets the mandate for the preparations in coming years for making Germany self-reliant in the energy sector in the context of phasing out of nuclear energy. It says, “Objective of securing Germany`s future demands a consistent, target-oriented and politically-effective monitoring process (analysis, evaluation, guidance) which the report on the approach and institutions describes in more detail.” Ethics commission expresses its belief in scientific excellence Germany has nurtured over the decades and thus appeals to think about ‘sustainable economic management’. It explains that Germany is already on the way to develop the alternative technologies and it will be in good position to harness those technologies to dispense the nuclear energy.

Question is, what are the inspirations and motivations behind this strong self-confidence. It draws its strength from planning reliability and technological competitiveness. It also indicates towards a stable strategy for investments in energy supply systems and energy efficiency as well as the provision of infrastructure.

Germany has envisioned energy future in following three pillars of sustainability; an intact environment, social justice and healthy economic growth. The kind of social changes envisioned in the framework of energy transition has been understood to be based on the strong foundation of democratic consensus. But this term of shutting down does not mean complete withdrawal because this technical term indicates a far reaching process. But this comes with the realization that restructuring of the energy supply will have negative effects on economic development, employment and for people on lower incomes.

Ethics commission derives its inspiration from the strong belief that objective of ecological compatibility stands alongside social equilibrium and economic efficiency for collectively achieving a future oriented structure for society. Putting forth the comprehensive integrated approach and our ability to imagine, report says, “Consequences in terms of the environment and health should be paid the same amount of attention as the cultural, social, economic, individual and institutional implications. Reducing the risks down to purely technical aspects would not fulfil the requirement for an integrated approach und comprehensive assessment. The approach also includes the basic principle that the burdens are not passed along to the general public, although this happens all too often, as can be seen in the example of climate change. Awe for the task and humility in one’s own thoughts and actions are essential. The central problem is not what can be imagined but what cannot.”

Eventually report makes case for democratic and open societies providing for more choices to its decisions in following words, “The discussion of the ethical positions presupposes that there are alternatives to choose from. The statement that there is “no alternative” to something is no longer accepted by the public. This is also true for the use of nuclear energy. The claim of a “lack of alternatives” undermines the confidence in open, parliamentary democracy. It is more the case that alternatives create freedom for making decisions. Also, alternatives will be available to a greater extent, the more decentralized and differentiated that the energy supply is structured. This increases the citizens’ opportunities to participate in the decision-making process and to get involved in cooperatives and other models, for instance, which enable them to organize their own responsibility themselves. This will strengthen the civic society.”

Risk assessment is based on following argument: “The starting point for the risk assessment is the reasoning that there can never be zero risk for large-scale technical installations and that the risks when using coal, biomass, hydro power, wind and solar power as well as nuclear energy are different but are comparable. As none of the energy options is risk free, the judgment for acceptability rests on a comparative assessment of the anticipated consequences of all available options on the basis of scientific facts and ethically-founded and mutually-agreed assessment criteria. This requires all of the risks and opportunities to be evaluated as well as is scientifically possible, whereby direct and indirect consequences over the whole lifecycle must be included. Alongside the scale of the consequences, the probability of them occurring must also be taken into account. In connection with the impact evaluation, the risks and opportunities must be weighed up against each other. Ethical considerations assist in making the most rational and fairest assessment possible. Lastly, it comes down to the political decision-making process, which determines which assessment criteria are weighted higher or lower.”

Other important elements discussed in this report are: consumer demand and citizen involvement, test criteria: environmental protection (debates and negotiations about climate change), security of supply(alternative technologies), economic viability and financial feasibility, social aspects of cost distribution, competitiveness, research and innovation, avoidance of dependence on imports.


In this background, let me share you what very timely article by former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam explains by relating to it to German situation. He in a article in The Hindu says, 
"A few things need to be put in context here. The decision of Germany suits its current scenario which goes beyond mere concerns of risk posed by nuclear power. Germany is a developed nation, a power-surplus nation — so it can afford to lose a few plants. More important, Germany has completely exhausted its nuclear resources. Against a total demand of 3,332 tonnes (2006-08) it was able to produce only 68 tonnes (Note: This was the production in 2006) of Uranium, and for the deficit it was relying on imports. Thus, nuclear energy never fits into its goal of energy independence. India, on the other hand, is the leader of the new resource of nuclear fuel called Thorium, which is considered to be the nuclear fuel of the future.


We should be careful not to be carried away by the barrage of anti-nuclear news often being generated by many of the same nations that are enjoying the maximum benefits from it. The economically developed world has a well-trained habit of presenting their success in a distorted context to misguide emerging nations like India, which are a potential challenge to their neo-age proxy-imperial economic subjugation. What is needed for our India, we Indians have to decide."