Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Nuclear Exit By Germany: Its International Significance

By Dr. Peter Custers

18 June, 2011
Countercurrents.org

The decision was expected, yet it has shaken the world’s nuclear establishment. On May 29, some two and a half month after disaster struck at Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear complex, Germany’s rightwing government of Angela Merkel has announced that Germany is exiting from the nuclear era. Whereas up until now the country has relied on nuclear production for an estimated 27 percent of its electricity needs, - in eleven years all reliance on nuclear production will be ended. Out of 17 existing reactors, operations at eight including the seven oldest ones were suspended immediately after Japan’s catastrophe. Now, chancellor Merkel – against opposition by German energy corporations - has announced that all other nuclear plants will be closed too, by 2012 at the latest. This heralds a major turn-about in German policymaking, since Merkel’s government had previously planned extending the country’s reliance on nuclear energy in time. Critics of the German government are quick to point out that chancellor Merkel has bowed to popular pressure. And there indeed is no doubt that the government’s turn-about is the result of popular mobilization against its opportunist energy policies. Regional elections held in May were accompanied by massive demonstrations in German cities against any continued reliance on nuclear energy. In these elections, the Green Party which has consistently advocated a nuclear exit emerged as principal victor. Indeed, Angela’s exit just expresses popular will!

What international significance to attach to the German decision? Let’s first note the fact that Germany’s exit by no means stands alone. It represents a trend which, if not Europe-wide, is at least partly so. Thus, at least two other Western European governments have taken similar decisions under the pressure of public opinion. Switzerland, which earlier planned to build new nuclear power plants, now has officially abandoned these plans. And Italy, ruled by Berlusconi’s rightwing government has witnessed a dramatic resurgence of anti-nuclear sentiments too. As recently as in 2008, Berlusconi’s government had announced plans to build four new nuclear plants. It had reversed the suspension of nuclear construction programs which had been in force since the 1986 melt-down in Chernobyl. Yet in May last Berlusconi’s government put all construction of new nuclear plants on hold, ‘on ice’. Moreover, by now Italy’s shaky government is in no position to resume any nuclear construction. For on June 15, a popular referendum was held about several issues simultaneously, including the nuclear issue. According to latest reports, - an overwhelming 94 to 96 percent of referendum voters expressed themselves against construction of new reactors. And although referendum participation at 57% might not seem high, the outcome is considered a solid blow to Berlusconi’s government. Moreover, Italy’s case exemplifies the widespread sentiment existing all over Western Europe today, that nuclear production simply is ‘out of date’.

It further is fascinating to note how Germany stages its energy transition. For Merkel’s decision is in fact the outcome of a long process, dating back to the beginning of the 1990s. Twenty years ago, a section of Germany’s political and business elite already visualized the need for a transition from nuclear production and fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, - towards ‘alternative’ sources of energy, such as hydro-electric energy, wind mills and solar panels. In 1991, the German government adopted a law stating that wind and solar energy would henceforth have to be accepted by companies supplying energy to German consumers, and at par with fossil fuel sources of energy. The law also specified the price to be paid to alternative energy suppliers. Again, the system was further refined in 2000, when a second text was adopted offering the suppliers of alternative energy a twenty years’ guarantee. Some critics argue that the German legal system known as ‘feed-in-tariff system’ contains nasty loopholes. For among the consumers of energy it is not the corporate sector but German households which bear the brunt of the costs for alternative energy protection. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Germany’s legal framework has facilitated a significant transition. Whereas renewable energy sources supplied no more than 3.1 percent of Germany’s electricity in 1990, - by 2010 this reportedly was 17 percent. Also, Germany is known to supply as much as 25% of the world’s electricity from wind mills.

Nuclear proponents in Germany and beyond have launched a vigorous counter-offensive. They question the implications of Merkel’s decision for ongoing international efforts to avert a climate catastrophe. The common-sense question is this: how then will Germany fulfill its growing energy needs, if it won’t any longer rely on nuclear production? Aren’t you guys just blind to the threat of a climate catastrophe? Clearly aware of the fact that the controversy pitting nuclear energy against fossil fuels would be stimulated by its decision on a nuclear exit, - Merkel’s government instituted an ethical commission. And the outcome of this commission’s work seems to leave room for doubt. In line with the commission’s recommendations, the German government remains committed both to a reduction of CO2 emissions (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020), and to a rapid expansion in production of wind energy. Yet in the short run Germany is set to construct new power stations relying on gas and, of all polluting sources, coal...! This seems contradictory, to say the least. But then the entire debate in Europe regarding future energy supplies is still axed on one unassailable presumption, i.e. the presumption that exponential growth in energy production should continue forever. Which is exactly the point that needs to be urgently questioned. For it is only possible to avert both climate catastrophes, nuclear catastrophes and combined climate-cum-nuclear catastrophes, if strict restrictions on energy use by Western consumers be agreed on.

Meanwhile, Germany’s decision to exit from the nuclear era is healthy from an overall ecological perspective. The founding of the nuclear sector during World War Two, with the Manhattan Project of the US government, had a doubly negative significance. On the one hand, humanity entered the era of atomic weapons, i.e. of weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, the initiation of nuclear production - for military purposes first, then for civilian purposes – also heralded, or coincided with, the start of a global ecological crisis. A crisis which today is escalating almost beyond human control. Against this background, the German government’s decision to bow to people’s demands is the beginning of a new trend. True - Germany is not at the point of building a ‘green’ economy, we are far from that. True - Germany’s system for promotion of alternative energy is not watertight. It is no more than one ‘Keynesian’ element in policymaking that is largely neoliberal. True –controversies in Germany now are shifting, for instance to whether production by windmills and solar panels should be corporate-controlled or decentralized. Yet the decisions by Western European governments to reject the idea of a nuclear renaissance impacts beyond nuclear production itself. A section of humanity at last has decided consciously to reject a technology which is outright destructive and severely damages life on planet earth. This shows that an ecological future for humanity is possible.

Dr. Peter Custers is author of a theoretical study on nuclear production, Questioning Globalized Militarism (Tulika/Merlin Press, 2007) Leiden, the Netherlands
www.petercusters.nl




 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.