Antinuclear

Need to redraft Report of International Commission on Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament.

Paragraph 15 and the remainder of the document would need to be re-worded to require phasing out nuclear power. Support for the following  points  might help to influence next month’s NPT New York conference.

by Peter Ravine, 26 April 2010, With due respect to Dr Gareth Evans, I am not impressed by the Commission’s December 2009 report as indicated by the following extract:

Extract from December 2009 report of the International commission on nuclear proliferation and disarmament.

Gareth Evans and yoriko karaguchi co-chairs

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT

“14.1 One of the three cornerstones of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – along with the disarmament and non-proliferation – is its recognition, in Article IV, of the “inalienable right” of all parties to use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in conformity with their other treaty obligations, and the need of all parties to cooperate in its provision: assisting states in this respect is part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s core mission. The Commission is well aware that there is not universal support, particularly in civil society, for this pillar of the NPT, but it is inconceivable that states’ commitment to non-proliferation could be maintained, let alone strengthened, without it.

14.2 There are also very good reasons in their own right for supporting, as this Commission does, the cooperative sharing of the benefits of nuclear energy. In a world ever-anxious about energy security, an increase in the share of nuclear energy to reduce dependence on imported oil and gas has many attractions for many states. And, more importantly still, while situations vary from country to country, it is almost impossible now to argue, from a global perspective, that civil nuclear energy is anything other than an indispensable element of the energy policy mix. The global recognition of the need for suppression of greenhouse-gas emissions significantly increases the attractiveness of nuclear power as the only low-carbon electricity generation technology with proven capability for large-scale supply – expensive up front, but economical in the long-run. Whether nuclear energy will increase its total share of electricity generation in a period of major and continuing demand increases may be questioned, but simply maintaining it would by itself be a major contribution to climate policy.”

I do not agree that nuclear power is needed to address climate change. Renewable energy resources are adequate.

(See http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3636864,00.html)

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887 should be reviewed in the following areas:

(From http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/publications/npt_2010.pdf)

(Operational Paragraphs)

11. Encourages efforts to ensure development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy by countries seeking to maintain or develop their capacities in this field in a framework that reduces proliferation risk and adheres to the highest international standards for safeguards, security, and safety;

Paragraph 11 should be re-drafted to read:

11. Encourages States to phase out nuclear energy as soon as possible by expediting renewable energy deployment together with appropriate energy storage and transmission. Nuclear power inevitably sustains nuclear weapons technology and opportunity.

12. Underlines that the NPT recognizes in Article IV the inalienable right of the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II, and recalls in this context Article III of the NPT and Article II of the IAEA Statute;

Paragraph 12 should be re-drafted to read:

12. Underlines that while the NPT recognized in Article IV an inalienable right of the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination; it is now recognized that it was influenced at the time by intense nuclear energy promotion, including claims that it would be too cheap to meter, now proven to be false.

(See http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/falsepromises.pdf )

13. Calls upon States to adopt stricter national controls for the export of sensitive goods and technologies of the nuclear fuel cycle;

Paragraph 13 should be re-drafted to read:

13. Calls upon States to phase out trade in sensitive goods and technologies of the nuclear fuel cycle;

14. Encourages the work of the IAEA on multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle, including assurances of nuclear fuel supply and related measures, as effective means of addressing the expanding need for nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel services and minimizing the risk of proliferation, and urges the IAEA Board of Governors to agree upon measures to this end as soon as possible;

Paragraph 14 should be re-drafted to read:

14. Encourages the IAEA to phase out nuclear power, and urges the IAEA Board of Governors to agree upon measures to this end as soon as possible;

15. Affirms that effective IAEA safeguards are essential to prevent nuclear proliferation and to facilitate cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and in that regard:

a.       Calls upon all non-nuclear-weapon States party to the NPT that have yet to bring into force a comprehensive safeguards agreement or a modified small quantities protocol to do so immediately,

b.      Calls upon all States to sign, ratify and implement an additional protocol, which together with comprehensive safeguards agreements constitute essential elements of the IAEA safeguards system,

c    Stresses the importance for all Member States to ensure that the IAEA continue to have all the necessary resources and authority to verify the declared use of nuclear materials and facilities and the absence of undeclared activities, and for the IAEA to report to the Council accordingly as appropriate;

Paragraph 15 and the remainder of the document would need to be re-worded to require phasing out nuclear power.

Support for the following  points  might help to influence next month’s NPT New York conference.

April 26, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, weapons and war | antinuclear, Australia, energy, nuclear, nuclear weapons, renewable