Dear readers,
how do you do it now?
How is the world facing the greatest challenge of the century?
Starting Sunday, some of the most powerful people in the world will discuss this issue at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow.
My colleague Susanne Götze will be on site for two weeks and report on who is presenting which ideas at the summit.
One of the ideas that will most certainly be put forward is this: Why don't we rely on super-practical, super-small and super-clean nuclear reactors?
This would enable the world to supply itself with electricity without emitting tons of CO₂, and it could switch off all coal-fired power plants.
There are always voices in favor of a rediscovery of nuclear power, in the French presidential palace and in SPIEGEL.
In the IPCC report, nuclear energy is mentioned as a possibility to meet at least a small part of the energy demand emission-free.
And Bill Gates is currently promoting the expansion of nuclear power, after all, gas is even worse.
On almost 100 pages: No thanks
A few days ago, the international research group of the Scientists for Future presented an almost 100-page "contribution to the discussion" which came to a different conclusion.
Around ten percent of global electricity production is currently covered by nuclear power.
And various actors, national and supranational, would attach a "certain importance" to nuclear energy on the way to climate neutrality.
But, the letter goes on to say, the experience of the past seven years has suggested "that such a path is associated with considerable technical, economic and social risks."
The scientists write that nuclear energy cannot contribute to solving the climate crisis.
These are the most important points of the paper
Nuclear power is dangerous
:
Since 1945, accidents have occurred in every decade and in every region that uses nuclear energy.
The consequences of such accidents are potentially catastrophic.
"Nuclear power is so risky that nuclear power plants cannot be insured anywhere," said Ben Wealer, lead author of the study and member of the Scientists for Future organization.
The financial consequences of a nuclear disaster - as in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or the reactor accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant - would simply be burdened on society.
No significantly greater reliability can be expected from the planned SMR reactor concepts.
And: nuclear power can be misused.
There is "a permanent risk of the misuse of weapons-grade fissile material" for terrorist purposes.
The long-term risks of final disposal are also not manageable and will place considerable burdens on future generations.
Nuclear power is not economical
:
The commercial use of nuclear energy emerged in the 1950s as a by-product of military developments and never made the leap to a competitive energy source.
The ongoing operation of older nuclear power plants is becoming increasingly uneconomical today.
In addition, other cost items are mostly overlooked: the "currently largely unknown" costs for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and expenses for the final storage of radioactive waste.
Nuclear power is not available quickly enough
:
The period in which mankind can counter a more drastic development of the climate crisis is limited: the expansion of nuclear power plants is stagnating worldwide, the progress of technical innovations is low.
That is why nuclear power cannot play a role in the two to a maximum of three decades that are relevant for combating the climate crisis.
Nuclear power slows the actually necessary transformation
:
According to the Scientists for Future, nuclear energy blocks the transformation processes that are necessary for an energy transition towards climate-neutral electricity production.
Pointing to the opportunities of nuclear power would curb innovation and tie up investments that should better flow into truly sustainable energy systems.
What is needed above all: radical reductions
We may or may not share this weighting of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power.
But: The UN climate conference should not become a platform on which partial and, in the worst case, sham solutions are discussed.
It has to be clarified whether nuclear power can and should cover a small part of the world's energy needs.
But that's just a marginal aspect.
The international community must find clear, irrefutable rules and ways in which CO₂ emissions can be drastically reduced.
With the means and technologies that are available to you now and today.
If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest topic of our time. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.
The topics of the week
UN climate conference in Glasgow: The 1.5-degree target cannot be achieved in this way
The climate plans submitted to date to reduce emissions are not enough, warns the UN.
There is a threat of a temperature increase of 2.7 degrees.
New climate report from Nicholas Stern: The unrecognized risk for future generations
Young people are "discriminated" when assessing the climate crisis, says top economist Nicholas Stern.
He advocates radical change - and investments.
Patricia Espinosa: UN chief climate officer warns of the failure of the world climate
conference
in Glasgow
If the delegates do not manage to achieve the 1.5 degree target with new action plans next week, hunger, terror and new flows of refugees will hit the world, warns the UN -Klimachefin Espinosa.
Controversial energy transition regulation: What does the solar cell requirement on the roof bring?
House owners will soon have to install photovoltaic panels in many federal states, and in future the rule will apply nationwide.
What that costs - and why of all things the solar industry is against it.
Climate researcher Edenhofer: "The emissions have to be reduced, and fast"
The next government has to really accelerate the energy transition, demands the Potsdam climate researcher Ottmar Edenhofer.
The most important measure: a CO₂ price that is twice as high.
Massive deforestation in the Congo: Rebellion in the rainforest
The rainforest of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the most important ecosystems in the world.
But international logging companies illegally cut trees.
The locals fight back - with success.
»Climate report« podcast: Will we soon need repositories for CO₂?
Pumping carbon dioxide into the earth so that it can no longer cause damage to the atmosphere - this is how global warming should be stopped.
But how far is the technology really?
Shock amplification in the event of extreme weather
damage
: Climate change could be more expensive than expected
Extreme weather as a result of climate change causes massive global damage - also in the world economy.
If droughts or flood disasters overlap, it will be even more expensive than previously thought, shows a simulation.
Change of power in Norway: "Everything that can run on electricity, we will run on electricity"
Jonas Gahr Støre is Norway's new Prime Minister.
Here he talks about the Europe-wide comeback of the social democrats.
And explains his goal of only having new electric cars registered by 2025.
Unesco study: Some national parks emit more CO₂ than they absorb.
At least the climate balance of the most heavily protected forests on earth should be positive, but that is only partially true.
After all, more than half of the national parks show a positive overall result.
Stay confident
Your Viola Kiel
