Nuclear power 'morally unacceptable'

NUCLEAR DANGER: Greenpeace questioned the motives of countries seeking to harness atomic energy. (Getty Images)

Greenpeace denounced nuclear power as "morally unacceptable" on Tuesday and hinted that many nations seeking to harness atomic energy for peaceful purposes really wanted to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, Gerd Leipold, international executive director for Greenpeace, questioned the motives of nuclear programmes and drew parallels between countries seeking nuclear power and those seeking nuclear weapons.

"Is it that they [countries looking to harness atomic energy] want to provide power to the poorest people?" asked Leipold, "Or is it that they have [nuclear] weapons aspirations?"

Leipold's comments come just a week after the UAE and Qatar signed agreements with France under which French companies will help the Gulf Arab states develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

A number of countries in the Middle East are looking to go nuclear. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has also offered to help Saudi Arabia and Egypt with their nuclear programmes.

Leipold also warned that even if countries were deemed politically stable now, there was no guarantee that they would be in the future, which could lead to nuclear technology falling into the wrong hands.

"Can any of us in this room guarantee that our states will enjoy complete political stability over the next hundreds of years? Because that is what it will take if we wish to pursue nuclear energy peacefully and safely," he said.

Leipold also slammed the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology whereby greenhouse gases are pumped into oilfields to push out oil, reducing emissions while boosting output and freeing up natural gas that is currently used for the job.

Leipold said CCS was an unproven method for greenhouse gas reduction and was not even available yet.

Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (Masdar) said on Monday it plans to develop a network of carbon CCS projects to reduce the UAE's greenhouse gas emissions, which were 34.1 tonnes per head in 2004, the third highest in the world after Qatar and Kuwait, according to the UN Development Programme.

"Nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage leave an unwanted legacy for future generations. Greenpeace believes this is morally unacceptable," Leipold said.

Leipold urged countries to embrace an entirely new perspective of energy consumption, saying desperate attempts to continue "business as usual" did not go far enough.

"What we need is nothing less than a revolution," he said.

Abu Dhabi to invest $15bn in green energy
WFES SUMMIT: Emirate plans to build world's largest hydrogen power plant.

US calls for global energy efficiency push
WFES SUMMIT: Largest energy consumer says measures will improve health of environment.

Print | Email | Discuss this article |

READERS' COMMENTS

View all comments (3)

Have your say

Posted by T Crowe Semler, Fayetteville AR, USA on Tuesday 22 January 2008 at 21:13 UAE time

What are we going to do with the toxic waste from these plants?
Who does it benefit to construct these plants?
With all the "GREEN" options why do countries still insist on building nuclear plants? "Green Technology" offers "Green Collar" jobs which will put the population of the Earth to work saving our planet. 1st world countries design new "Green" technology / projects, re-tool and retro-fit existing buildings and facilities. 2nd world countries shift all new projects to the "Green Model" retool- retro-fit existing buildings and facilities. 3rd world countries Build all new infrastructure following "Green design" and Models.
The potential is only limited by our imagination and the "greedy power elite".

Nuclear energy
Posted by Deon, Dubai, UAE on Tuesday 22 January 2008 at 18:54 UAE time


What a load of bull. Nuclear energy is the best alternative to energy problems. When done properly it poses no threat. Even a country like South Africa uses nuclear energy to supply power. Much better than fossil fuels

GREENPEACE..... HIPPYCRYTES!!!
Posted by Hussain M, Khobar, Saudi Arabia on Tuesday 22 January 2008 at 18:40 UAE time


yes, global warming is a drag now isnt is.

however our weather in the GCC has improved latley so im okay with it.

let me ask the nice little greenpeace people...
WHAT IS BETTER??? BURNING OIL AND NATURAL GAS FOR ENERGY THAT CREATES ALOT OF CO2?
OR NUCLEAR POWER THAT GENERATES ALOT OF H2O?????

the fact of the matter is that we need an alternative to fossil fuels to provide electricity and frankly solar power and thermal vents jsut dont cut it on a metropolitan scale.

yess we can use solar powers in our pretty little houses... but do u know how many solar panels it would take to power up...lets say... an airport or industrial complex?

Greenpeace...instead of complaining why dont YOU develop technological concepts to help stop the problem.

And i bet Gerd Leipold, drive around in an old 1960s volkwagon van with flowers on the side that gets 2 miles to the gallon.

Click here to post a comment

Add your Comment All posts are sent to the administrator for review and are published only after approval. ArabianBusiness.com reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic.
Name *
Remember me on this computer
Email *	(Your email address will not be published)
City
Country
Subject *
Comment *
Notify me of further comments
Security Code *
Please click post only once - your comment will not be published immediately.

MORE FROM ARABIANBUSINESS.COM