Desicritics Category: Politics: Energy

Bush Signs Nuclear Energy Deal With India

DeeptiA — Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:20:17 EDT

In a landmark deal that broke many facets of the international nuclear embargo on NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) non-signatory nations, the US has finally signed a nuclear deal with India. This has been among the most heated and debated agreements in recent times. Part of a mission to make US-India ties closer, and to relax some of the restrictions on India in the nuclear area, the deal took a lot of diplomatic effort to get through, and the final legal step of the deal was signed in by President Bush. This last step was not necessary for India to go ahead with nuclear deals with other nations, but in light of the recent efforts by the US administration to push the deal, the Indian side decided to wait for the US Congress approval.

US President George W Bush has signed into law a nuclear deal with India, which ends a three-decade ban on US nuclear trade with Delhi. The landmark agreement was approved by the US Congress nearly a week ago. The deal will give India access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.
India says the accord is vital to meet its rising energy needs. Critics say it creates a dangerous precedent. They say it effectively allows India to expand its nuclear power industry without requiring it to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as other nations must. The US restricted nuclear co-operation with India after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1974.

The Indian side faced tremendous challenges in getting this deal through. The process was started by a discussion with the BJP ruled Indian Government and the Bush Administration, and was then negotiated by the Congress Government with the US Administration a couple of years back. The Indian Government was a minority Government, and dependent on the Communist Parties and many other parties.

The Communist Parties, although against the nuclear policies of the Indian Government, have always despised a closer relationship with the United States and refused to flatly support such a policy, warning of a end to the Government (and since the Government was in a minority, an end seemed quite natural if their support ended).

For a long time, it seemed that the Government had given up, after all the nuclear deal was not a vote-winner, the deal also seemed to be against the interests of the Muslim minority vote that the Congress wants, and so on. And then, after many months, Dr. Manmohan Singh finally decided that enough is enough; he literally forced the Government to agree to his stand that they back the deal; to the extent that manipulations were allowed in order to make sure that the Government retained a majority in Parliament.

Getting the deal through the Nuclear Suppliers Group was another difficult task. There were many nations wedded to the cause of denial of technology to anybody who had not signed upto the NPT, and it required intensive effort by the US to get the group to agree. China in the end tried to prod other nations, but the US pressure (and a small amount of Indian pressure) was enough to get the member to eventually agree, even though it was totally under pressure.

The United States also had to face opposition internally, both within the Administration, and outside in the strategic community; people were reluctant to approve any exemptions to the NPT; thought was that this gave India the right to use its uranium resources to push its military weapons program; also that this gave the wrong signal to others such as Iran and Pakistan.

Overall, this deal will provide a vast impetus to the nuclear energy commercial business; with India planning a large number of reactors to meet a portion of its energy needs, a number of companies worldwide will benefit.

Arctic Ice Shrinks to Smallest Ever Coverage

Ashish — Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:09:56 EDT

In spite of the science of global warming now being a science that is validated by most scientists, and with dire warnings from an international council of scientists about the accelerated pace of global warming, the world leaders are caught up in a debate over who makes what change, over whether the economic impact is worth taking, and so on. There is also a tussle between the developed world and the developing world over who will take the required actions to reduce the growth in emissions, and in fact, reverse the increase in emissions. People now recognize that even if emissions are totally frozen, it will take time for a reduction in the trend of global warming.

The extent of re-freezing of Arctic ice is an indicator of conditions, and the indicator is not so good. The ice in the Arctic is now at the second lowest point ever, crossing the second lowest point set last in 2005. There is an increased amount of speculation that a few years in the future, we will see an ice-free Arctic. Typically, some melting of the ice happens in the summer months, and re-freezing happens in the winter months, but this year, the ice has started melting earlier than in previous years, so there is a strong possibility that the region with ice could be even smaller than last year, which was the record year:

Researchers say the Arctic is now at a climatic "tipping point". "We could very well be in that quick slide downwards in terms of passing a tipping point," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based NSIDC. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now," he told the Associated Press news agency. Last September, the ice covered just 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles), the smallest extent seen since satellite imaging began 30 years ago. The 1980 figure was 7.8 million sq km (3 million sq miles).
Irrespective of whether the 2007 record falls in the next few weeks, the long-term trend is obvious, scientists said; the ice is declining more sharply than even a decade ago, and the Arctic region will progressively turn to open water in summers. Globally, the Arctic melt will reinforce warming because open water absorbs more of the Sun's energy than ice does.

There are people who are looking to see this open ice-free region as a place of increased economic opportunity, with the potential to drill for oil and gas, as well as to have a better shipping zone. However, this greater ice-free region will be a disaster globally, with it serving to increase the overall warmth of the earth's oceans; and if this impacts the Antarctic or Greenland ice shelves, then we will start seeing the rise in the waters worldwide.

In addition, this is called a tipping point because in the current scenario, the ice reflects sun light; however, as the ice melts, the open sea is far darker, and the water absorbs much more of this sunlight, causing the water to warm up more. As this continues to happen, there is a point where the warming water causes more ice to melt, and reaches a runaway point where the ice melt starts to become much more rapid. In the meantime, the debate over who will do what, and what the targets should be for ensuring that emissions stabilize and then start reducing is an ongoing debate, mired in geo-politics.

Broadband on Batteries

Shantanu Dutta — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:35:47 EDT

While booking an air ticket online the other day, there was a power cut just at the point when the gateway was processing the payment from the credit card and the modem shut down. The resulting confusion led to stress as I tried to contact the travel portal, the bank and the airline to get a clear picture regarding ticketing, charging of payment and so on. Online travel portals are not your typical travel agent of old whom you knew by name and had done business with for years. The anonymity of the voice on the other side of the line, the peculiarity of the problem and their obvious inability to understand, let alone help only added to the confusion. This practically undid any advantages that doing transactions online might have provided.

In India, there is a lot of political backing from both the major political formations to increase internet penetration which is among the lowest in the Asia–Pacific region.

“India has the lowest Internet penetration rate at 3 percent in the region, according to a survey by U.S.-based digital research firm comScore Inc. According to the survey

- South Korea boasts of the greatest rate of Internet usage, with 65 percent of its population using the Internet in May.

- China clearly has the largest online population with 91.5 million people. The number of monthly unique Internet users in India is just a quarter of that figure at 22.8 million.”

- South Korea has the most active online population, using the Internet an average of 17.4 days per person in May, and dedicating 31.2 hours to viewing 4,546 pages during the month. Indians on the other hand got onto Cyberspace an average of only 11.4 days per person in May and viewed 1,400 pages over 14.7 hours.

Clearly though, the government is not pushing for internet penetration so that citizens can watch videos on Youtube. Rather the intent is to promote e-commerce and e-governance through the internet platform and thereby increase productivity and efficiency. While all that is a good thing, the commensurate development of an infrastructure backbone is missing.

For instance, look at energy and power generation. After all, my story started with the recounting of a power failure in the middle of a commercial transaction. Even as I write this, electricity in India’s national capital goes on and off several times a day.

Anybody who has ever experienced a power cut in India would know empirically that India simply does not produce enough electricity for its needs and will not do so in the foreseeable future although the national electricity policy envisages power for all by 2012 and per capita availability of power to be increased to more than 1,000 units by 2011-12. With the deadline barely four years away it is impossible that this goal would be ever met.

While industrialization is progressing at a rapid pace, the fact that power generation has not kept up has meant that even relatively less industrialized states like West Bengal which once were power surplus, have power cuts now. In fact, the more industrialized you are, the more is the demand. Maharashtra, for example, faces a deficit of more than 30 per cent In fact, the colloquial term for power cuts “load shedding” has now become part of the country’s rural folk lore.

As I complete typing this piece on a laptop and upload it from a speedy GPRS modem, I remind myself that having a increasingly high tale density of phones and laying strategies to wire up the country to the customer’s doorstep and using Wi Max to connect up the whole country won’t work if we don’t have a proper infra structural backbone. You can’t run a broadband service operating on batteries ! It just does not work !

Bernie, You Touched Me

temporal — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:00:13 EDT

I did not know you Bernie. Can I call you Bernie?

Were you married? Did you celebrate your 20th or 25th anniversary? Did you have children? Were you a good father? Were you good friend?

If I do some research I can find out more about you. But that would be later. Here in this park I can only guess.

You must have had your share of cloud nine days just as you would have had pit days.

****

The full moon peaked through the clouds and the waves in Lake Ontario near Lock 1 of the Welland canal reflected the peek-a-boo moon. the light house of the St. Catharines Marina warned the sailors. Sitting under a weeping willow, just east of Jones Beach, the distant lights of Whitby and Oshawa visible over the horizon, a sense of calm prevailed.

It was an unreal calm that for a few moments pushed the headlines mentioning Georgia, Russia, Kashmir, Occupied Palestine, Musharraf far away.

Few moments? Try 3:30 am! Next morning….er….afternoon, after brunch we headed out to a local bird sanctuary and zoo. In the pond a turtle crept up on a rock and was philosophically musing about the world around. A flock of Canada Geese rested in the shade. Past the pond a sign read Nature Trail. I thought, nature does not trail, we do.

There were weeping willows, oaks, maples, birches on this trail. At the end of this short trail we entered a well manicured small park: a memorial to the 47 Canadians who were killed in the twin tower collapse.

Trees found in Eastern Canada were planted and a plaque in front of each tree mentioned the names – Cynthia Connolly, Albert Alfie William Elmarry, Colin Macarthur…

I stopped at Bernard Mascrenhas, born Karachi, 1950.

****

I don’t know you Bernie. Your life was extinguished at a ripe age by the dastardly act of a former CIA golden boy Osama bin Laden. He did not know or care that you were on the 97th floor of the North Tower.

After the fall of former USSR, the US desperately wanted an opponent and 9/11 created that opportunity. At the cost of innocent civilian lives like yours and the others whose misfortune it was to be in the twin towers that day, they nearly succeeded in creating an enemy group that could fill the vacuum of the erstwhile bi-polar world. It found willing accomplices in Islamophobes organizations and states.

Whether Osama still sings to Langley, Va. tunes is open to conjectures.

At lock 1, of the Welland Canal I saw BBC Elbe pass through. I could have touched it. It appeared huge, almost 12 stories high. Later I saw it in Lake Ontario, still big, then growing smaller before fading from view. You will always be close to those who love you, even though you have faded from the memory of others.

I am against the loss of a single civilian life at the hands of a deluded individual, an organization or a state. Not knowing you personally I mourn you. May you be peaceful wherever you are. And may the tree planted in your honour thrive.

The Russia-Georgia Conflict - Stoking The Embers Of The Cold War

C R Sridhar — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:18:40 EDT

On 7th August 2008, Friday, Georgia, which became independent of the Soviet Union in 1991 began an offensive on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. Fashioned along the lines of a blitzkrieg, the Georgian military launched a heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. An American witness Joe Mestas who was living in South Ossetia at the time of the military offensive said ‘I thought that since U.S. is supporting Georgia there would be some control over the situation in South Ossetia and that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict. But what is happening there now it’s not just war, but war crimes. George Bush and [Georgian president] Mikhail Saakashvili should answer to the crimes that are being committed – the killing of innocent people, running over by tanks of children and women, throwing grenades into cellars where people are hiding.’¹

The Russian response was swift and bloody. Russia sent tanks and troops into the province and carried out series of air strikes on Georgian military targets. By Saturday the Russian air force pounded the nearby town of Gori. The Russian troops went deep into Georgian territory and the battered Georgian forces had to be pulled back to defend its capital, Tbilisi. The massive show of force by Russia was understandable as South Ossetia has close to 90% of the citizens having Russian citizenship. Moreover, the province broke away from Georgia in the nineties when it declared itself independent. South Ossetia has closely aligned itself with Russia.

No roses for Mr. Putin

The simmering discontent between Georgia and Russia arose over an event, which was called the Rose Revolution of 2003. This was a bloodless coup, which saw the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze. Mikheil Saakashvili who entered the Parliamentary building interrupting a speech of Shevardnadze forcing him to escape with his bodyguards. Eduard Shevardnadze finally stepped down on November 23, 2003 to avoid civil war. The new ruling elites- Mikhail Saakashvili, Nino Burdzhanadze and Zurab Zhvania- took control of power in Georgia.

Mikheil Saakashvili who is now the President of Georgia is a graduate of George Washington University and studied law at Columbia Law School. He is known to support US role in the Caucasus. He has publicly supported Bush in his global commitment to expand democracy and has extolled the virtues of real market economy. This sent alarm bells ringing in the Kremlin as Putin and his political advisors saw the hand of U.S. in the Rose Revolution. The alarm of Kremlin was perhaps justified as the Wall Street reported on November 24, 2003 ‘the three politicians [Saakashvili, Burdzhanadze and Zhvania] are backed by a raft of nongovernmental organizations that have sprung up since the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of the NGOs have been supported by American and other Western foundations, spawning a class of young, English-speaking intellectuals hungry for pro-Western reforms.’²

The relationship between Georgia and Russia also soured because Mikheil Saakashvili lobbied hard for Georgia to become a member of NATO with the active support of U.S. The Russians perceived the situation as potentially dangerous as they saw Georgia as becoming a NATO outpost posing a threat to Russian territorial interests. Vladimir Putin- the Russian President- voiced his strong protests accusing U.S and NATO as gradually encroaching Russian space.

The Politics of Oil

In a detailed article titled ‘Oil intrigue and US Realpolitik heighten tensions in the Caucasus’ the authors say ‘The US-backed coup in Georgia and Washington’s subsequent diplomatic sabre-rattling have nothing to do with the spread of democracy or similar clichés. Georgia, strategically situated between the Black Sea and the oil-rich Caspian, has long been a focus of intrigue and conflict between the great powers. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the goal of weakening Russian influence and achieving US domination of Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus became a central preoccupation of US imperialist policy.’³

The U.S. interest in Georgia lies in its geographical position. As Dr Alexey Muraviev, strategic affairs analyst in his article says ‘the control of Georgia gives access to the oil and gas rich areas of the Caspian Sea and former Soviet Central Asia. It allows firming up control over the Turkish Straits, a critically important shipping point. And further, it reduces Russia and its influence in some critical areas such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.’⁴

Another event of great importance to understand the cold war rivalry surfacing between U.S and Russia is building of the Baku pipeline (BTC), which was completed in May 2005. Costing 3.6 billion dollars, it is one of the most expensive oil projects. The interests in this massive project involves BP. The other partners are Unocal (US) and Turkish Petroleum Inc. The oil is pumped through pipelines and shipped via the Turkish port Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Significantly, Ceyhan is located near to the US air base Incirlik. The pipeline project had top-heavy advisors who held extremely senior positions in the government of US. Some of the important officials - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Cheney- have shaped US strategic oil interests in the region.⁵

The battle lines and emerging power blocs

Since the breaking up of the Soviet Union, the politics of the Caspian region has become complex, volatile and dangerous, as there is scramble for the oil-rich resources of the Caspian from the United States. In this scenario, power blocs have emerged with opposing strategies-‘ On the one side is an alliance of US-Turkey-Azerbaijan and, since the Rose Revolution, Georgia, that small but critical country directly on the pipeline route. Opposed to it, in terms of where the pipeline route carrying the Caspian oil should go, is Russia, which until 1990 held control over the entire Caspian outside the Iran littoral. Today, Russia has cultivated an uneasy but definite alliance with Iran and with Armenia, in opposition to the US group.’⁶ The geopolitical strategy of U.S has been to bring regime changes friendly to US interests in countries (earlier Soviet bloc), which are located in pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea. The scramble for oil by these power blocs would provide flashpoints for conflicts in these regions.

The Georgia-US-Israeli Nexus

The US interest in Georgia is shaped by the scramble for oil in the region. The Western media such as BBC, CNN and other electronic media simplify complex issues pertaining to the present conflict by defining it as big power such as Russia intimidating a small country.

What the mainstream media did not report is the extensive involvement of US-NATO in the planning of the military offensive against South Ossetia which is at the cross roads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes. US has provided extensive military aid to Georgia with transport planes (US) assisting the redeployment of 2000 Georgian forces in Iraq back to the country to fight. It is also believed that US provided logistical support to Georgia to move 11 tons of military cargo. In the past, Israel has also supplied military equipment to Georgia. As Peter Hirschberg reports ‘In recent years, ties have also taken on a military dimension, with military industries in Israel supplying Georgia with some $200 million worth of equipment since 2000. This has included remotely piloted planes, rockets, night-vision equipment, other electronic systems, and training by former senior Israeli officers.’⁷

Israel is also an interested party to get the oil from the Caspian region. ‘What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tip line, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East’⁸

The Seeds of Cold War

The Russian perspective on this issue is best summarized by Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006) ‘[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region’s countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel.’ A fact, which would be resisted by Russia, as she perceives the threat of the encirclement of countries friendly to US. This was made amply clear by the sharp violent response to Georgia’s military attack on South Ossetia.

Even though cease-fire has been declared between Russia and Georgia, there has been an uneasy peace. Is this a lull before the storm? Is the recent conflict in the Caucasus a dress rehearsal for the more serious conflicts to break out between US and Russia? With Russia flush with oil money and flexing its nationalist muscles the future holds the fear of a sharpened cold war. A war that we thought lay buried in the memories of history.

-----------------------
1 This is Genocide: American Witness Says U.S. and Georgia to answer for violence - Russia Today - Monday, Aug 11, 2008.
2 Georgia's "rose revolution"; made in America coup- Barry Grey and Vladimir Volkov, wsws.org
3 Oil intrigue and U.S. Realpolitik- Barry Grey and Vladimir Volkov, wsws.org
4 US plays a shadowy hand in Georgian conflict- Dr Alexey Muraviev, strategic affairs analyst, Crikely.com
5 Colour Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku pipeline-F. William Engdahl-Global Research- June 25,2005.
6 Colour Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku pipeline-F. William Engdahl-Global Research June 25,2005.
7 Israeli Arms Sales to Georgia Raise New Concerns- Peter Hirschberg - anti-war.com
8 War in the Caucasus: Towards a broader Russia-US Military confrontation?-Michel Chossudovsky- Global Research

The Russia-Georgia Conflict - The Bear's Power

Ashish — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:56:13 EDT

The Soviet Union was once a mighty empire, controlling large chunks of land in Europe and Asia, and giving the West a mighty enemy. Then it all fell apart; the individual states (many of them incorporated by force) wanted their freedom, and Boris Yeltsin wanted his own Russia to rule, and so the Soviet empire ended. Then began the decline. Then rose a strongman out of all this, one who had the blood of the all-powerful intelligence agency KGB running through him. On his own he could not do anything; however, he was lucky. Russia had large tracts of oil and gas, and had turned into a large exporter of these, bringing in revenue, and helping regrow the power.

However, in the midst of all this, the world did not stay still. Many of the former Soviet republics did not stay still, moving towards the West (and seemingly away from the clutches of their former all-powerful dictatorial landlord), striking closer relationships with them. At the same time, like any major power (and one that remembers all too well how powerful it is), Russia grew increasingly resentful of this emergence of the West in an area that it treats as its backyard (a close equivalent would be if Mexico suddenly became more hostile to the US and very very friendly towards Russia or China).

This may well seem normal for a powerful country to treat its immediate neighbors as its areas of influence, but not so for the country so dominated. Ask Finland, that has fought wars with Russia in the past over this dominance, and ask Afghanistan that does not like being called as an area of Pakistani influence, as if it has no identity of its own.

So, when Ukraine tried to show itself as more hostile towards Russia, there was a sudden crippling blockade of the oil and gas it gets from Russia; and now Georgia. Ever since President Mikheil Saakashvili came to office and had a campaign of getting back the pro-Russian provinces of South Ossetia and a second separatist area, Abkhazia, Russia has been seething. It already knows that it is much more powerful. The US wants its support in the initiatives against Iran and North Korea, and cannot afford to antagonize Russia. And the Georgian leader gave Vladimir Putin just that chance. He tried to take one of the provinces, South Ossetia back, and met such overwhelming Russian force (without any check by any other party) that Western leaders were worried that Putin may be trying to gain more geographic control inside Georgia.

Right now, things are moving towards a cease-fire, but Russia must have intended this as a show of force to Georgia and others, that they are truly helpless when faced with this great bear.

Nuclear Power - The Seduction of Mephistopheles

C R Sridhar — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:32:24 EDT

‘MEPHISTOPHELES, in the Faust legend, the name of the evil spirit in return for whose assistance Faust signs away his soul.’- Classic Encyclopaedia.

The trope of Nuclear Energy as Mephistopheles is rooted in history. The dropping of the Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 by the Americans exposed to the world the destructive power of the Atom. The belief that nuclear energy was a benign genie in service of humankind received a rude jolt when accidents occurred in nuclear plants, one of which was the accident at Chernobyl in 1986 in Ukraine when Unit Four of the plant exploded spewing radioactive fission products into the environment. The fallout of radioactivity from Chernobyl had horrific medical and ecological consequences. It is estimated that nearly 10000 persons of 6,50,000 involved in the clean up operation died prematurely. The long radioactive tail reached large areas of the breadbaskets of the Ukraine and Byelorussia contaminating the soil. The fallout also affected other countries such as Austria, Germany, France, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Italy, Baltic states and other countries in the Northern Hemisphere. The incidence of cancer increased significantly among the population living in areas close to the nuclear plant.

The long radioactive tail of Mephistopheles

Before the Chernobyl accident, there was another accident that rocked the complacency of nuclear Industry who said that the chances of a meltdown happening were the same as a bolt of lightening striking a person dead in a parking lot. On March 28, 1979, a nuclear power plant at the Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania had a meltdown on account of a mechanical failure causing the core reactor to overheat. Soon large amounts of radioactivity escaped into the atmosphere. Radioactive water was also released into Susquehanna River, which drains into Chesapeake Bay, a major fishing location. Hundreds of people reported nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding from the nose, hair loss and skin rash. There were also reported deaths of farm animals and there were fears that the cows were radiated contaminating the milk supply. Official studies on the impact of radiation on health and the increased incidence of cancer among people living near the plant were not conducted raising the suspicion that the government friendly to the nuclear lobby were hushing up the bad news about the radiation and its effects.1

It would be short sighted on our part to view Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as isolated incidents not warranting a caveat on the use of nuclear energy. There were other incidents such as the accident at the Davis-Besse reactor (Ohio), which occurred in 2002. The inspectors found a cavity in the reactor pressure vessel. The stainless steel liner had not ruptured and a major tragedy was averted. The risks of such accidents would increase as the reactors are aging with the bulk of the reactors moving into the old age cycle. The near misses would dangerously increase as the years go by.

The bad news about nuclear safety does not go away. As recently as last month there were radioactive leaks in France. The Guardian (UK) reported ‘Last month an accident at the treatment centre during a draining operation saw liquid containing untreated uranium overflow out of a faulty tank. About 75kg of uranium seeped into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers which flow into the Rhône.’ This is not the end of the story. As the Guardian again reports ‘But in recent days there have been other, lesser incidents at nuclear sites. In Romans-sur-Isère, north of Tricastin, at another site run by an Areva subsidiary, officials discovered a burst underground pipe which had been broken for years and did not meet safety standards.’ The environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said there were 86 level-one nuclear incidents in France last year and 114 in 2006. More than 80% of France's electricity is generated by the country's 58 nuclear reactors - the world's highest ratio.2

Nuclear Renaissance

In spite of dangers associated with the use of nuclear energy, the seduction of Mephistopheles remains as potent as ever. With Bush – Cheney in US and Sarkozy in France pushing for nuclear energy as an alternative to oil, there appears to be a sort of nuclear renaissance emerging in the wake of oil crisis. The prospects for the nuclear industry seem bright after languishing in doldrums throughout the end of the Twentieth Century as result of environmental movements and protests.

The Nuclear Energy Institute - a propaganda wing of the Nuclear Industry - has spent millions of dollars in spreading highly misleading messages that Nuclear Energy is cheap, clean and green. The ads that reinforce the image of nuclear as a benign force show children gambolling in green grass. The caption at the top of the ad reads - Nuclear Electricity & Clean Air Today & Tomorrow.

Blunting the PR blitz

The propaganda of the Nuclear Industry has not gone unchallenged. In her book Nuclear Power is not the Answer, Dr. Helen Caldicott, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and a leading spokesperson for the anti-nuclear movement, subjects the ‘clean and green’ argument of nuclear energy to withering criticism. She accused the Nuclear Industry of hiding significant facts from the public and peddling nuclear energy with the same ethical disregard to truth as a snake oil salesman.

According to the author, nuclear power ‘is not clean and green’, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Moreover, the burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)- the primary greenhouse gas- into the environment. In addition, large amounts of the now banned CFC are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC is more dangerous than CO2 in creating the greenhouse gas and is also a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.

While it is true that nuclear electricity produces one-third of the CO2 emitted from a similar sized conventional gas generator, this is a transitory phase. Soon as the uranium ore declines in grade, more ores are required to be mined by using more fossil fuels. It is estimated that within ten to twenty years nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the massive amounts of fossil fuels required to mine and to enrich the poor grades of uranium ores. The tech-fix solution of obtaining large quantities of uranium by reprocessing radioactive spent fuel is not a pragmatic option as it is expensive, extremely hazardous for the workers and releases large amount of radioactive material into the air. In the long run the nuclear plants would emit the same amounts of greenhouse gasses and air pollution as conventional power plants.

Safe running of the nuclear plants do not guarantee they would be emission free. Government regulations allow the nuclear plants to emit thousands of curies of radioactive gasses and material into the air. There is also radioactive waste in accumulating in the cooling pools in the nuclear plants in the world. As the author warns, ‘this waste contains extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukaemia, and genetic disease in population living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come.’3

A white elephant

Contrary to the optimistic pronouncement of the Nuclear Industry that nuclear electricity is cheap in as much as it costs only 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour when compared to coal costing 2 cents and gas fired power costing 5.7 cents it is actually exorbitant. The estimates are misleading as they are based on the operational costs of existing plants. Moreover as the author points out ‘ They represent a classic omission of capital costs from a pricing equation.’4 Once realistic construction and running costs are considered, the price of nuclear electricity rises from an estimated 3 pence per kilowatt hour (5 cents in US) to 8.3 pence (14 cents). The capital costs of new plants are very high whereas the costs of running old reactors are not that high. When other costs are added such as subsidies received out of tax payers money, managing pollution, health costs in the event of radiation and its treatment and costs of maintaining nuclear plants secure from terrorist attacks, nuclear energy loses its appeal as a cheap source of electricity.

The road to Perdition

Apart from the disadvantages of high cost and high risk, nuclear energy also opens the Pandora’s box of proliferation of atomic weaponry. Every nuclear power plant has the potential of being an atom bomb factory. A 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year; normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atom bomb. A bomb made from the plutonium could easily devastate a city making the world an unsafe place. Any non-nuclear weapon state could easily acquire a nuclear plant and have the ability to make nuclear bombs.

With technology becoming simpler and information becoming available on the Internet, the technology to make bombs with nuclear material is not an esoteric skill, which is beyond the means of any rogue state.

In the Indian sub-continent both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is estimated that India has 65 nuclear weapons, Pakistan has 30 to 50 weapons and China has 400 weapons. To add to the dangerous scenario, India is being positioned by US to contain China’s rise to super power status. The simmering tension between India and China could worsen in the times to come. The uneasy relationship between India and Pakistan does not augur well for peace in the sub-continent. The prospect of nuclear Armageddon is not science fiction but a case of fiction becoming reality.

A more sustainable energy policy

Electricity is generated when heat boils water converting into steam, which turns turbine-producing electricity. From the energy perspective ‘a nuclear reactor’ - in the words of Helen Caldicott - ‘ is just a very sophisticated and dangerous way to boil water - analogous to cutting a pound of butter with a chain saw.’5

Globally, coal supplies about 64% of the world’s electricity, hydro and nuclear each provide 17%, and renewable energy provide 2%. But recent studies indicate that solar power could supply clean electricity to 100 million people living in the sunny parts of the world by 2025. Tidal and Wind power could provide up to 20% of the UK’s current electricity needs. An integrated energy plan using a mix of wind power, cogeneration, geothermal energy, biomass, and tidal/ wave power combined with energy conservation could displace existing reliance on nuclear power. And with the shift of resources in the form of billions of dollars given as subsidies to the nuclear industry to renewable energy the dream of a clean world environment would be realised.

Individuals need not be mere pawns in the game that big energy corporations play for their own ends. They could play an important role in measures promoting energy conservation – simple acts as not driving fuel guzzling SUV’s, not leaving lights burning all over the house, relying less on air conditioners and heaters by allowing the sweat glands to work more or wearing heavy sweaters in times of winter. Some lifestyle changes are painful but necessary. But self- sacrifice and nobility also motivate human beings. As Helen Caldicott aptly says in the last chapter of her remarkable book, ‘These are the qualities that will lead the world toward sanity and survival.’6

Also hopefully, end the fatal seduction of Mephistopheles once and for all.

--------------------------
1 Nuclear Power is not the Answer- Helen Caldicott- Books for Change- pages 65-74.
2 Accidents tarnish nuclear dream-environment- The Guardian.
3 Nuclear Power is not the Answer- Helen Caldicott- Introduction- page ix.
4 Nuclear Power is not the Answer- page 19.
5 Nuclear Power is not the Answer- page xii.
6 Nuclear Power is not the Answer- page 183.

Poetry: Grains - of Truth, Sand and Biofuel

temporal — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:57:17 EDT

Photograph: Charlie Neibergall/AP

in our wakeful moments
we're legends, walking time
but when mother time wins
we'd be grains of sand
on the spacious shoreline
of the sea of history

with six billion plus
demanding more and more
the planet's patience
not inexhaustible
the poor feel the pinch
with increasing pain

oil, non renewable
we look for alternatives
and bio-fuel lures
grains get diverted
making a few relieved
but the plenty
go hungry and riot

unprepared, unable
to solve their leaders
entrench and buy more arms
the hungry millions
up in arms, without
can only whimper, die

the gleeful arms merchants
seeing profits in grain
smile obliviously
less is more, they think

***

biofuel
secret report

Nuclear Deal - India Goes to the IAEA - "Midnight Deceit"?

Aaman Lamba — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:43:55 EDT

In what was seen as a surprise move, the Indian government submitted the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency, citing the need to have it reviewed prior to the meeting with the IAEA Board. The opposition parties cried foul, terming the move 'midnight deceit' and a betrayal of the commitments made by the UPA government to seek a trust vote before approaching the board.

The President of India has summoned the Prime Minister for a meeting, amid demands for a trust vote within the week.There were allegations of a 'deal within the deal' and of the Prime Minister treating this as his 'personal agreement.' On the other hand, the UPA praised the show of support by the G8 nations and termed this one of the best deals in the history of inter-governmental relations. They cited the safety clauses of India's right to take steps to maintain supplies to civilian nuclear reactors in the event of a nuclear test and a breakdown in international supplies.

At the G-8 meeting in Japan, the leaders stressed safe, peaceful nuclear development, while placing weak targets for emissions reductions on themselves. The climate goals were not seen as ineffective, and despite President Bush including China and India in the goals, there were divisions reported between the G-8 and the developing nations, with each wanting the other to move first.

In India, at least, the UPA Government took the initiative, breaking the stalemate, and losing no time in moving forward after the Left Front withdrew support. It remains to be seen if the current governments in either India or the United States have time to negotiate the agreements before they come to the testing grounds, as it were.

Why the Nuclear Deal is Bad for India

Venkatesh Sridhar — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:39:15 EDT

For the past 2-3 weeks, there has been one issue that has dominated much of media attention in India. That singular issue is the Nuclear Deal between US and India. Now, everyone knows what I feel about the Left, but this time strangely I agree with them that India should not sign the deal as it is not in India's interest to do so, though I have strong factual reasons to do so unlike the more ideologically bent opposition of the Left.

The reason why this post comes so late in the day - now that it's almost a given that the Government of India (GoI) will go ahead with the deal despite the opposition to the deal by its coalition partner; the Left with the PM now officially going to the G8 meet, is because I have spent a lot of time in finding out information and framing a fact oriented opinion.

My opposition to this deal centers on the following grounds, questions which the media has not bothered raising and neither the opposition:

1. Shift of dependencies: Oil & Gas is a form of energy that is used worldwide in everything from agriculture to electricity generation. Oil is controlled by a cartel called OPEC. For nuclear energy creation, you need Uranium, India does not have enough Uranium resources so India needs this deal for access to Uranium. Now, that would mean being dependent on another cartel - the NSG - Nuclear Supplier's Group. Will this provide energy self independence?

2. Why rely on another nation?: Do you know that another fission material that can be used for generation of Nuclear Energy is thorium, India has 24% of the world proven thorium reserves in the world. India is conducting cutting edge research on how to use thorium in producing nuclear energy. This research will lose its importance and significance when you are going to be getting the Uranium from somewhere else. Now, why should you spend strategic forex reserves outside of the country to benefit another nation. If India needs nuclear energy so much (India does need alternative forms of energy as India will be short of 412 gigawatts by 2050 and the need to import 1.6 billion tonnes of coal will be needed to fulfill this energy) then India can increase the allocation in the budget to thorium research and increase the strategic importance.

3. Minor benefits in the short term: India currently produces 4000 MWe of nuclear energy after this deal, it will rise to 20,000 MWe in a DECADE, yes in a DECADE. So, it is not a short term solution to the energy crisis in India. Also, construction of a nuclear reactor is a time consuming process.

4. Water usage in nuclear energy production: Nuclear energy, though considered one of the cleanest forms of energy, you require a lot more water - which is another resource that is depleting worldwide - for production and storage.

5. Strategically swallowing a bullet: Let's get to strategic issues, as per the Hyde act as amended by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US (Bills: H.R. 5682 and S. 3709, a comparison of the two can be found here) and passed in the final version clearly dictates the following if you go through the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006:

i. India's ties with Iran. As per Section 105 (8) of H.R. 5682 as passed by the Senate (with text of S. 3709 as engrossed amendment), Requires India’s full & active participation in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions (source). So, this puts us in a bind w.r.t to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which will provide us with much needed cheap gas. Because, if construction begins in 2009, the gas can be supplied starting September 2012 (source). According to Jorge Hirsch - a physics professor at the University of Chicago, who initiated a letter to George Bush Jr., to prevent the US from adopting a hawkish stance towards Iran which will inevitably lead to use of Nuclear weapons against Iran - feels that unlike Russia and China, "India could indeed be bought off by US incentives like the nuclear deal, because its shortsighted leaders don't recognize that they are committing national suicide by entering into this nuclear deal with the US." (emphasis mine).

ii. In an event of a nuclear test by India, the US President will have the right to end the deal on the spot and demand return of the materials supplied and guess who wanted this clause in the bill - Senator Barrack Obama of Illinois and the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for the President of United States of America. From the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006, this is what Barrack Obama said:

Mr. OBAMA. On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies? (emphasis mine)

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 agreement would still have to meet the requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear
explosive device the United States shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated. (emphasis mine)

Read it again, this is the Democratic Presumptive Nominee for the post of the President of the United States of America asking very clearly whether the US has the right to end this deal and ask for return of supplies if India does a nuclear test. Based on his question, what do you think he would do if he was the President and India does a nuclear test. Do not forget as of today he has a 50% chance of being the US president considering that only he and McCain are realistic candidates to be the President.

6. Lag in gaining benefits from this deal: India will have to wait for some years before it can actually get to use the Nuclear energy, I believe a reasonable time frame will be 5-10 years - considering that it involves going to so many governmental organizations, the NSG, the IAEA, the time it takes to construct additional nuclear reactors. Now, meanwhile our dependency will not reduce on Oil and Gas. Iran who has been a longtime friend of India. India and Iran have long cordial relations. India and Iran are talking with regards to a gas pipeline from Iran to India. The act of signing the deal means that India will have to forego this deal, read point 5(i). Period.

7. Economic costs: Commercially, the cost of producing Nuclear energy will be high considering the capital cost of setting up the Nuclear reactor, understand that you cannot produce electricity till the reactor is completely up which means the cost of production can vary anywhere between US$ 2,950/kWe to to a Moody's Investors Service (read para 9 in the link) conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe. According to a BusinessWeek report, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt." For further information go to the wikipedia entry on economics of nuclear energy). There are a few costs no one is willing to factor in. Who will pay for the costs of ensuring compliance and the safeguards and all other reporting elements that are critical to the functioning of the deal after signing it. It is common sense that it will cost more.

8.Alternative energy creation: India has a stated goal of achieving energy independence by 2012, don't see that happening with this deal for reasons explained above. India introduced the Jatropha incentives to encourage production of bio diesel using Jatropha seeds. Jatropha can grow in the wastelands. GoI has already identified 400,000 sq.km. of land where Jatropha can be grown. A much more prudent and truly long term solution to India's energy crisis than the Nuclear deal, as India is a big consumer of diesel especially in rural areas.

9. Safety considerations: The world has already seen the impact of two major nuclear accidents, the famous Chernobyl disaster in former Soviet Union and current Ukraine and the Three Mile Island disaster in the US. Just as the Richter scale is used to measure the magnitude of Earthquakes, there is the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). Chernobyl was rated 7, a non nuclear event that can be rated 7 is the Bhopal disaster in India and Third Mile was rated 5. Now, India's nuclear reactors are close to two major cities in India - Mumbai (Tarapore) and Chennai (Kalpakkam), as the Chernobyl disaster The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5,000 square kilometres. Imagine the damage it will cost if something goes wrong. Thank God, nothing has gone wrong so far, but still it should be an important consideration. India has not framed a Nuclear liability framework, what if something goes wrong, who will bear the brunt of clean up work, the economic cost and other such issues. We have not learnt our lessons from the Bhopal disaster as the clean up work continues to be stuck. Yet, the Government is silent on this issue.

Now, Dr. Manmohan Singh, may go right ahead and sign this deal, because he is hell bent on this deal as he views this as his personal stake being on the line plus this is the legacy he wants to leave behind, as he has nothing much to show as being the Prime Minister, except maybe be known as the most compromised Prime Minister.

Also, he has chosen a very good time - there is about 6 months left for the next General elections in February 2009, and even if his Government falls, it would take the Election Commission atleast 6 months to prepare itself for elections. As an economist he knows that India's inflation problem - which will be a key poll issue cannot be solved in the 6 months timeframe without compromising serious growth, hence he has sensed his opportunity and decided to push for it regardless of the Left's threat to withdraw support.

As I have outlined, overall it is not in our interests to go ahead with the deal and if the PM does sign the deal, the legacy he would leave behind will not be of securing India, a place as a Nuclear Weapon State but it will be of selling India's nuclear independence.