With the energy crisis ramping up under the summer heat, Japan has redoubled its emphasis on its “Cool Biz” campaign that has been in place since 2005 and is now renamed “Super Cool Biz” in acknowledgement of the increasing severity of the problem. Businesses are encouraged to keep thermostats set to 85F during the height of summer and to have workers shed their suits and dress shirts for khaki shorts and sandals. Offices are also encouraged to increase the telecommuting option for workers where possible, and to shift operations toward earlier morning hours.

Even with drastic energy-saving measures in place, the hopes for making severe cuts to energy consumption are not high. Japan already consumes less energy than the world average for each point of its GDP by 20% and less than the US by a whopping 30%. With shiny new cars parked behind every garage door waiting to drink the purchased oil Japan needs to make up its energy short falls, the choices aren’t getting any easier.

Everyone is cutting down to even the smallest expenditure. To do its part in conserving energy, the Ministry of Economy has even deactivated its automatic doors. As a country they’ve already improved energy efficiency by 37% in the last 30 years according to Japan’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. It’s not like the problem is merely curbing extravagant and wasteful uses of energy. They’re looking at having to curb perfectly practical uses of energy for only the absolutely vital ones like powering hospital equipment and food storage facilities.

In the midst of all of these energy saving strategies and campaigns remains the question of what to do next. With Japanese citizens still unconvinced of the ability of their local reactors to survive an earthquake or tsunami, proponents of renewable energy are making their voices heard. With some 200 volcanoes and 28,000 hot springs, it has been estimated that the country could supply over 80,000 megawatts of electricity, enough power to meet half of the country’s energy demand. With the topography and seashores of the coast, an additional 80,000 megawatts could possibly be produced with land-based windmills.

Prior to suffering the no confidence vote in July, Japan’s Prime Minister Kan had proposed a goal of powering 10 million Japanese homes with roof top photovoltaic panels by 2020. Now, Japan has set goals even beyond Kan’s proposal and aims to increase the total PVC panel output of the country from 3,500 megawatts in 2010 to 53,000 megawatts in 2030 and to power18 million Japanese homes by that year.

Japan’s nuclear proponents and those attached to the already existing nuclear infrastructure will not easily let go of nuclear possibilities, and with the heat of summer creeping in, it seems the main direction Japan turns for electricity will be decided in the coming months. The visions of an environmentally friendly 2030 are nice, but the sweat of the summer of 2011 may help worried citizens decide they don’t mind their local reactor so much after all.

Whether the reactors are restarted or not, the hopes for nuclear expansion have most likely been forever dashed in Japan, and whatever direction the country turns for meeting further power demand will most likely include a diversified portfolio of earth friendly technology.

Masayoshi Son, Japan’s wealthiest man, has started a research foundation for renewables backed by his own investment money, and so far the foundation has been honored to list 37 of the country’s 45 prefectures as founding members. The situation is ripe for leaps in innovation that could perhaps pave the way for the rest of the world to follow. As the temperature climbs, the whole world watches and waits to see what Japan’s next step will be, and if it’s one the rest of us could possibly follow.

“I soon came to the conclusion that neither international cooperation nor technological advancements would guarantee human societies to build and safely run nuclear reactors in all possible conditions on Earth (earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wars, terrorism, climate change, tsunamis, pandemics, etc.). I am sadly reminded of this turning point in my life as I listen to the news about the earthquake, tsunami and extremely worrying nuclear crisis in Japan.”

Silvi warns that “there will definitely be worse accidents” if we continue with nuclear power:

“Why not consider Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima as warnings of greater catastrophes to come and avoid the inevitable by shutting them down, much like changing your diet and/or lifestyle after finding out that your cholesterol or blood pressure is elevated, rather than continuing down the same path until a heart attack or stroke strikes?”

According to Silvi the world could easily replace nuclear power simply by reducing our energy usage and introducing energy efficiency programs:

“Nuclear today only generates about 12 percent of the developed world’s electricity. By instituting an energy efficiency program,” Silvi suggests, “we could fill the gap caused by shutting them all down and put this malevolent genie back into the bottle.”

And the public in Italy seems to agree with Silvi’s anti-nuclear sentiments as they voted against new investments in nuclear energy in a recent referendum in the country. In Japan only 19 of the 54 country’s nuclear reactors are now operating. The others are offline for various reasons since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. At the same time the country’s wind farms are fully operational and were actually unscathed by the massive earthquake disaster. And people claim that nuclear is a stable energy source…

Many people will recognise that description of George Monbiot in his role as one of Britain’s leading environmental journalists. Sadly, few of those descriptors apply to the George Monbiot who is now championing nuclear energy.

The George Monbiot We Knew

Until quite recently, Monbiot was unequivocal that nuclear energy was not worth the risks. Here he is in 2005:

“…nuclear power spreads radioactive pollution, presents a target for terrorists and leaves us with waste that no government wants to handle.”

He was also certain that nuclear was not the optimal solution for climate change mitigation. He approvingly quoted a paper from physicist, Amory Lovins:

“Expanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions.”

He rounds off that article with an attack on the UK’s chief scientific, Sir David King, for his support of nuclear energy: “I fear that the government’s chief scientist is mutating into its chief spin doctor.”

He pushes home his point in 2006:

“To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible. … If, as a result of slow leakage into the groundwater, radioactive materials from a burial site kill an average of only one person a year for one million years, those who made the decision to bury them will – through their infinitesimal and unrecorded impacts – be responsible for the deaths of a million people.”

His positioned softened in 2009, stating that he would not oppose nuclear provided it met four conditions:

1. Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account.

2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried.

3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay.

4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.

His second condition was not met in 2009, it is not met today and there is no sign of it being met at any time in the foreseeable future. We do not know where to put our nuclear fission waste, which needs storing somewhere securely for at least 100,000 years. This means his first condition is also not met – if we don’t know where to put it we certainly do not know its total emissions. Similarly, we cannot know the cost so his third condition cannot be met. In theory, in a perfect world, his fourth condition can be met – but in reality there is no chance of guaranteeing it. We can never be certain what happens in democratic governments, let alone in the less stable regions of the world where theocracies and dictatorships exist on a political precipice.

So, in reality, none of Monbiot’s conditions for not opposing nuclear can be met. He lectures us on why this is such a fundamental problem:

“The most fundamental environmental principle, taught to every child before their third birthday, is that you don’t make a new mess until you have cleared up the old one. It seems astonishing to me that we could contemplate building a new generation of nuclear power stations when we still have no idea where the waste from existing nukes will be buried.”

Fukushima Meltdown Brings Nuclear Epiphany

Following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan on March 11 and the subsequent growing catastrophe that engulfed the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, Monbiot published an article just 5 days later, stating “The Fukushima crisis should not spell the end of nuclear power.“At this stage, TEPCO (the Japanese power company who own and manage the nuclear reactors) were issuing calm reassurances that there was little to worry about – “All 6 units of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have been shut down.” (March 13) – as we simultaneously watched videos of nuclear containment buildings exploding and multiple experts warning that the situation was far worse than official reports suggested. Very clearly, TEPCO’s claim that all the reactors were “shut down” was at best ‘misleading’.

With each passing day it became clear that Fukushima was a growing disaster. A few, short weeks later it was elevated to International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) level 7 – the highest level, only matched previously by Chernobyl. To say that Monbiot’s assertion was premature is a colossal understatement. TEPCO subsequently admitted that “The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl.”

Monbiot reiterated his four conditions for not opposing nuclear and added a fifth in his March 16 article:

“To these I’ll belatedly add a fifth, which should have been there all along: no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe.”

Note that he has seemingly forgotten about the threat of terrorism even though there seems little evidence that the world has become a more stable, secure place in the past six years. He also seems unaware that the same chief scientific adviser to the UK that he pilloried in 2005 as being nuclear’s “chief spin doctor” warned that ““a mass of rock” off the Canary Islands was “waiting to collapse into the Atlantic” causing “giant tsunamis””, adding “Britain would have a six hour warning before a 30ft wave hit us”.

So, Monbiot’s growing list of conditions all fail – but this does not dampen his growing affection for nuclear. Although, deciphering Monbiot’s position is quite difficult when he makes statements such as:

“I despise and fear the nuclear industry as much as any other green: all experience hath shown that, in most countries, the companies running it are a corner-cutting bunch of scumbags, whose business originated as a by-product of nuclear weapons manufacture.”

Who does he think will build and manage nuclear reactors in the UK – or anywhere else – except the “corner-cutting bunch of scumbags“?! At this point a person who makes decisions based on evidence and reason might start backing away from nuclear. Not the new George Monbiot. He is now more convinced than ever:

“As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.”

After his March 16 article, he no longer mentions his four five conditions. They have simply vanished.

Chernobyl? General ‘Buck’ Turgidson Assesses the Impact

Monbiot is now aggressively advocating nuclear and going on the attack against a growing chorus of criticism directed at him:

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution.

He even uses the strap line “How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power” which is a play on Kubrick’s classic movie, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb“. Just like General ‘Buck’ Turgidson from the movie, Monbiot’s assessment of mass death and suffering is akin to “having our hair mussed.”

In order to dismiss the impact of Chernobyl as being relatively insignificant Monbiot offers up his readers a single number for total deaths: 43.

That number is cherry-picked from the IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency – whose stated purpose is to “seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy“. Those 43 are the poor souls who were immediately affected by radiation that came pouring out of Chernobyl, mostly firemen, engineers and other first responders. They received massive doses of radiation and died quickly, in days or weeks. However, the 43 that Monbiot claims (subsequently increased to 47 in a later article) is most certainly not the full extent of the excess deaths that resulted from Chernobyl. Here are a selection of estimates:

• World Health Organisation (WHO) / IAEA = 9000 “…there may be up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl among the people who worked on the clean-up operations, evacuees and residents of the highly and lower-contaminated regions in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/index.html
• International Agency for Research on Cancer = 16,000 “…about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur.” http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2006/pr168.html
• TORCH (independent scientists, commissioned by the German Green Party) = 60,000 “…the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths.” http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
• Greenpeace = 93,000+ “…approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.” http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/chernobylhealthreport.pdf
• New York Academy of Sciences = 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_publication + http://www.napf.org/articles/db_article.php?print&article_id=141

There is clearly a very wide range of estimates of total mortality as a result of Chernobyl and it is impossible to ever know the true number. But one thing is clear: the true death toll resulting from Chernobyl far exceeds the handful that George Monbiot wants us to believe.

Also, note that the WHO are effectively muzzled by the IAEA following an agreement in 1959 whereby the WHO cannot publish anything regarding radiation or nuclear technology without the approval of the IAEA. So, even the nuclear industry’s marketing department admits there may be up to 9000 excess deaths due to Chernobyl. And this says nothing about the tens of thousands of excess cancers, the miscarriages, birth defects, people displaced from their homes, all the lives wrecked by each of these things and the crippling economic costs – all of which continue today.

Monbiot’s claim of 43 47 excess deaths due to Chernobyl is not simply wrong. It is an obscene lie. He must know about the wide-ranging credible estimates that put total fatalities in the thousands or tens of thousands. He must know that the IAEA is the marketing department for the nuclear industry – the same industry that he describes as “liars” and “scumbags“. And yet, for the purpose of assessing the impact of Chernobyl, a cherry-picked number from the nuclear industry that not even the nuclear industry quotes is the gospel truth for General ‘Buck’ Turgidson George Monbiot.

Radiation dangerous? Bananas!

Now George moves on to the thorny problem of radiation toxicity. He ‘cites’ a nifty graphic from a well-known web-based comic: XKCD, Radiation Dose Chart. It offers a guide to radiation based on relative doses, starting with ‘sleeping next to someone’ and ‘eating one banana’. Monbiot found this quite convincing. Perhaps because he chose to in preference for doing the least amount of research on the subject?

Radiation comes in different forms and can be delivered by different mechanisms. The key fact not shown in Monbiot’s preferred comic is that external emitters of radiation (e.g. getting an x-ray at the dentist) are not the same as internal emitters (e.g. drinking milk contaminated by caesium). Once radioactive products have entered the body (via water, food or from the air) they are emitting radiation directly into cells and their deleterious effect is multiplied massively. So background radiation is not at all the same as having radioactive plutonium in your lungs or radioactive caesium in your bones or radioactive iodine in your thyroid.

Bananas? Bananas contain potassium. Your body contains potassium. When you eat a banana, your body ejects the same amount of potassium that you just consumed, thereby making bananas radiation-neutral. Also, as you would expect, the radiation delivered by bananas is very different to that delivered by fissile materials that come out of a nuclear reactor that is in meltdown. For some reason, this has not occurred to George Monbiot.

Note the warning at the foot of the XKCD graphic – which Monbiot clearly did not: “If you’re basing radiation safety procedures on an internet image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself.” Indeed.

The False Dichotomy: Nuclear or Coal

The key argument that Monbiot appears to be pushing (as best one can discern from the multiple, frantic articles published over the last few weeks) to defend his nuclear crusade is that our energy choice is “nuclear or coal” and therefore “nuclear or unmitigated climate change“. This is a false dichotomy.

The choice for our energy future – and therefore climate change mitigation – is nuclear energy or renewable energy.

Remember that Monbiot circa 2005 said, “Expanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions.” This was confirmed by the UK government’s Sustainable Development Commission: “doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035” and “the risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages.” That advisory panel has since been closed by the pro-nuclear Tory government – which is one way to get rid of inconvenient facts when you have an ideology to push ahead with.

Monbiot is backing the wrong horse in the climate change mitigation race. Reality shows that renewables are being deployed at a phenomenal rate and global renewable energy generation now exceeds nuclear. Remember, nuclear has been subsidised, developed and deployed for almost 60 years; renewables have only received serious investment in perhaps the last decade.

New nuclear reactors are barely being deployed quickly enough to match old reactors going offline. The disaster at Fukushima is unlikely to improve that. Indeed, Germany have since announced rapid closure of their nuclear reactors and to accelerate their plan for 100% renewable energy.

The other tactic that Monbiot has employed to justify a rush to nuclear energy is that nuclear will become cheaper in the future. He made the following bizarre statement while debating Caroline Lucas of the Green Party:

“So while you can say wind at the moment costs less than nuclear … My guess, because I haven’t yet seen a comparative study, and I don’t believe one exists, is that when we get up to those sorts of levels, nuclear is likely to be quite a lot cheaper.”

That beggars belief. He is making “guesses” based on non-existent studies about the costs of nuclear and renewables decades in to the future while admitting that right now nuclear is the more expensive option. And contrary to Monbiot’s “guessing”, the evidence suggests the very opposite. Nuclear continues to climb in costs while renewables continue to fall:

• Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve? Real escalation in reactor investment costs while solar and wind falls. “New nukes have gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter for the foreseeable future.”

The George Monbiot of Today

There is no coherence to Monbiot’s arguments. He demonstrates all the traits of the climate change deniers he has fought for many years. He cherry picks numbers, ignores all credible evidence that undermines his position and abandons his arguments as soon as they prevent him pushing forward with his new-found love of nuclear. He is making statements which he must know to be untrue. He is “guessing” about costs of technology decades in to the future in order to justify his beliefs.

George Monbiot is in denial of reality in order to protect an emotional attachment to what he erroneously believes is a solution to global warming. He is advocating a technology that brings catastrophic risks, highly toxic waste, is too expensive, too slow and unreliable to build. Nuclear energy will starve the renewable sector of the funds and resources it needs and which offers the best chance of preventing catastrophic climate change.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Monbiot has succumbed to superficial arguments from vested interests. He was fooled by the lies of the climate change deniers regarding the stolen CRU emails. He was fooled by a single paper from a rightwing think tank, RWI Essen, to the extent that he called Feed In Tariffs and solar energy “The German Disease”? He has now been fooled by the lies of the nuclear lobby.

For many, this inconsistency and lack of coherent, evidence-based reasoning is now too much. George Monbiot can no longer be considered a credible commentator.

George Made Some New Friends

To finish on a positive note for George, he has made some new friends and allies with his nuclear epiphany. Among them are the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, and who are possibly more responsible than any others for funding climate change denial. They also strongly support nuclear energy. Why? Because they know that nuclear offers no realistic threat to their fossil fuel golden goose. The George Monbiot that we knew would have gained a clue from that fact….

Since the problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant unfolded there have been raging a heated debate over the future of nuclear energy. Such as the debate between George Monbiot and Helen Caldicott over at the Guardian.

In this presentation (below) from 2008 Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of the Kyoto-based NGO Green Action, talks about how nuclear power can’t fight global warming. Over the next decade there will be ZERO additional contribution from nuclear power in the fight to combat global warming, she says. Other flaws with nuclear energy is the fact that the construction takes too long, and that the costs are rising. She says that nuclear power is unreliable for fighting global warming due to accidents, mismanagement and earthquakes. Watch it:

Other news from Japan: 17,500 gather for Tokyo rallies against nuclear plants, Kyodo news agency report.

”We’ve learned that nuclear plants cannot be controlled by human power,” said photographer Gentaro Todaka, 34, among the participants. ”We hope to halt the Hamaoka plant which is said to be the most dangerous, and the campaign to halt nuclear plants will spread elsewhere.”

For more updates on the Fukushima crisis you can also follow us on Twitter.

Kelly Rigg, from the global climate change alliance (GCCA), writes on the Huffington Post:

“Colleagues and I have been directly corresponding with Yoshinori Ueda leader of the International Committee of the Japan Wind Power Association & Japan Wind Energy Association, and according to Ueda there has been no wind facility damage reported by any association members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami.”

She reports that the Kamisu wind farm, which is located 300km from the epicenter of the earthquake, managed to survive without any damages. Mostly thanks to its “anti-earthquake battle proof design”. According to Yoshinori Ueda most of the wind farms in Japan are now operational. The remaining ones are offline due to grid failures caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

So while the awful nuclear crisis continues, with experts warning that the Fukushima disaster could become worse than Chernobyl and that the deconstruction of the plant could take decades, this story really should give a boost of confidence to the renewable energy sector. And it seems that the stock markets agree on this. The stock price of Japan Wind Development Co. Ltd. has risen from 31,500 yen on 11 March to 74,700 yen today. And the Guardian reports that the Japanese nuclear crisis has made shares in renewable energy sources rocket as public and investors recoil from the nuclear energy industry.

Fukushima really does makes the case for renewable energy, as Antony Froggatt writes on BBC.

Another article worth reading is this one by Leuren Moret on “Japan’s deadly game of nuclear roulette“. It was published seven years ago and warned about the potential consequences of investing heavily in nuclear energy near such a dangerous earthquake zone as Japan:

“Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list.”

It’s like Naomi Klein says. Our societies have become addicted to extreme and reckless risk-taking.

The photo shows the second hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 3 reactor in Japan.

The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has sparked new life in the nuclear energy debate in many countries. And the fear for possible nuclear accidents in other countries forces politicians to reconsider and review their current energy policy stance.

The continued protests against nuclear energy in Germany has seen an upswing during these past days. About 60,000 people formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany this weekend to protest its continued operation. And chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to announce the suspension of the country’s plans to extend the life of its nuclear power stations later today, the Guardian reports.

In USA people and politicians are starting to question President Barack Obama’s plans to expand and build new nuclear power plants to meet growing energy demands in the country. The independent and strongly pro-nuclear Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have said that the USA should “put the brakes on nuclear power plants“:

“I don’t want to stop the building of nuclear power plants. But I think we’ve got to kind of quietly put, quickly put, the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line.”

In Britain the Green lawmaker Caroline Lucas have said that the Japanese nuclear crisis strengthens the case against new nuclear construction. “You will never be able to completely design out human error, design failure or natural disaster,” she said. Walt Patterson, associate fellow at London’s Chatham House thinktank, said that, the financial damages of a potential nuclear accident also played a big role in shaping the energy debate in Brian and Europe.

“That is undoubtedly going to filter back to the debate in Europe as a further factor in the very dubious economics of these plants,” he told Reuters.

The plans to expand nuclear energy in India for around $175 billion might, in light of the current situation in Japan, see a strong public backlash, analysts and experts say:

“The Japan accident has created a very, very tough situation for India, actual implementation of nuclear power projects will now certainly take a backseat,” said Debasish Mishra, Mumbai-based senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. “It will be very difficult to sell the idea of nuclear power to people for any political party after the Japan disaster.”

While the nuclear crisis in Japan might not change the Chinese government’s plans to develop more nuclear power it could force China to review their energy policies. The current situation in Japan “may become a factor in the drafting of China’s energy plans, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in Beijing.”

“The accident in Japan may trigger increased public concerns over building atomic plants,” said Dave Dai, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Capital Markets Co. “China will become more cautious while developing nuclear-power plants but is unlikely to alter its long-term nuclear development plans.”

More news on this developing story will be published here as they come.

We are taking a break from the live-updating. You can continue to follow our updates about the nuclear crisis in Japan here. For live updates about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan you can check out Al Jazeera or the Guardian.

Update 38: Meltdown may be under way at Fukushima nuclear reactor, official with Japan’s nuclear safety agency tells CNN.

Update 37: AJE has this quote from a Tokyo Electric Power Co spokesman about the No.3 reactor failure:

“All the functions to keep cooling water levels in No.3 reactor have failed at the Fukushima No.1 plant. As of 5:30am, water injection stopped and inside pressure is rising slightly.”

Update 36: While the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending two experts to Japan AFP reports that the operators of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, where a second reactor system is overheating, says there is a risk of a second explosion.

Update 35: The Washington Post writes that the U.N. nuclear watchdog says Japan is evacuating 170,000 people from the area near a nuclear power plant damaged in the devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Update 34:

Update 33: Yesterday 3 people had tested positive for high radiation levels. That number has now jumped to 160 says a Japanese nuclear safety official, AJE reports.

Update 32: The emergency cooling system of No.3 reactor has now also stopped working, the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has announced. Sea water is being pumped into the No.1 reactor chamber – and officials are scrambling to secure water supply to the No.3 reactor.

Update 31:

Update 30: Greenpeace has issued a statement regarding the radioactivity release from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan:

“Our thoughts continue to be with the Japanese people as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following already devastating earthquake and tsunami. [...] How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that a situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis. Once again, we are reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster.”

Update 29: There is radiation leaking out, and since the possibility of exposure is high, it’s quite scary said 17-year-old Masanori Ono.

Update 28: If this accident stops right now Fukushima in Japan will already be one of the three worst nuclear accidents in history, CNN reports.

Update 27: The third day since the massive earthquake and the nuclear crisis is still a big and real threat in Japan. Meanwhile about 60,000 people have formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany to protest its continued operation. The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked massive protests and discussions about the future of atomic power in Germany.

Update 26: The operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co, will fill the leaking reactor with sea water to cool it down and reduce pressure in the unit, a government spokesman says to AJE. Flooding the reactor core with sea water is the last emergency option available to try and cool down reactor fuel rods and prevent a meltdown.

Update 25: The Japanese government has now evacuated more than 300,000 people from their homes near the Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) nuclear power plant.

Update 24: This is coming from our own Twitter-feed, which is another source of information regarding the nuclear situation in Japan: These NASA satellite images show the coastline before and after the tsunami in Japan. And according to German media about 60,000 people have, in response to the nuclear emergency in Japan, formed a chain around a nuclear station in Germany to protest its continued operation.

Update 23: We know have some updates about those three people that have been affected by radiation: According to this Twitter post “3 patients out of 90 were tested for radiation levels. All 3 were above the normal levels. They were scrubbed. No lasting symptoms.” Edit: This has now been confirmed by media. AJE writes:

“Of 90 people from within the 10km exclusion zone around Fukushima nuclear power plant tested, three have given positive results for radiation exposure, says Japanese public broadcaster NHK. That’s just over three per cent. Some 45,000 people who live within the 10km radius were told to evacuate their homes in the early hours of this morning, when pressure inside reactors was building rapidly.”

Update 22:

Update 21: Cabinet secretary Yukio Edano said:

“The nuclear reactor is surrounded by a steel reactor container, which is then surrounded by a concrete building. The concrete building collapsed. We found out that the reactor container inside didn’t explode.”

“We’ve confirmed that the reactor container was not damaged. The explosion didn’t occur inside the reactor container. As such there was no large amount of radiation leakage outside. At this point, there has been no major change to the level of radiation leakage outside, so we’d like everyone to respond calmly. We’ve decided to fill the reactor container with sea water. Trade minister Kaieda has instructed us to do so. By doing this, we will use boric acid to prevent criticality.”

AJE writes: “Edano said due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container and the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.”

Update 20: According to Kohei Hayashi three people have been “confirmed to be affected by radiation”. Still no info about this from media. And Reuters are reporting that police patrolling near the Fukushima nuclear plant are wearing respiratory eqipment.

Update 19: Now we are getting contradicting statements from the Japanese government and TEPCO, the owners of the affected nuclear plants. TEPCO seems to be saying that there has been a meltdown but the Japanese government says that this isn’t the case.

Update 18: Strong aftershock quake with a preliminary magnitude of 6 hits Fukushima:

Update 17: Independent nuclear safety analyst John Large tells Al Jazeera that, by venting the radioactive steam from the inner reactor into the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion: “When I look at the size of the explosion, it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak … the fuel continues to generate heat.” John Large says that by the end of the day “we should know what the situation really is” and that: “All the jigsaw piece of the Three Mile Island disaster are being replicated at this plant – and this has gone beyond Three Mile Island.”

Update 16: The deputy cabinet secretary for public relations and director of global communications at the Prime Minister’s Office of Japan says there is no no damage to the nuclear reactor container following the explosion.

Update 15: The cause and consequences of the explosion at the nuclear plant in Japan continues to be unclear. But Ian Hore-Lacy believes the explosion was due to hydrogen igniting:

Ian Hore-Lacy, communications director at the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, told Reuters he believed the explosion was due to hydrogen igniting, adding it may not necessarily have caused radiation leakage. “It is obviously an hydrogen explosion … due to hydrogen igniting …If the hydrogen has ignited, then it is gone, it doesn’t pose any further threat,” he said.

Update 14: BBC News says that the operators of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are claiming that the reactor container was not damaged in the large explosion.

Update 13: AJE reports on the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and the effects of the earthquake in Japan in this video: Japan fears nuclear plant meltdown.

Update 12:

Update 11: The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant says the blast there happened during an aftershock to Friday’s quake. AJE also reports that the Japanese government is taking security measures for an possible nuclear meltdown:

“Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the government is taking contingency measures and collecting iodine, with can be used against radiation sickness, as officials said they have detected eight times the normal radiation levels outside the facility.”

Update 10:

Update 9:

Update 8: Al Jazeera interviews Peter Hayes, the executive director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable development in Melbourne, about the current situation and of possible scenarios in the quake-hit nuclear plants:

Update 7: BBC News shows footage of the explosion at the nuclear power plant:

“There has been an explosion at a Japanese nuclear power plant that was hit by Friday’s devastating earthquake. Pictures show a blast at the Fukushima plant and initial reports say several workers were injured. Nuclear expert, Malcolm Grimston told the BBC that nuclear materials may have been able to escape.”

Update 6: AFP and other media sources now confirms that an explosion has occurred at the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. According to Reuters and NHK “several people appear to have been injured after the nuclear plant explosion”.

Update 5: We are getting words that an explosion has taken place at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. More info shortly.

Update 4: Well this quote from AJE doesn’t sound good: Peter Hayes, a nuclear expert, tells Al Jazeera “it’s still possible that the reactor workers can stabilise the situation” at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant “if power is brought back, if coolant is brought into the reactor”, but “we’re really right at the precipice of a massive nuclear crisis”.

Update 3: Following the news from yesterday that fuel rod have been exposed above cooling water level at the Fukushima nuclear plant Japanese nuclear authorities now say “there is a high possibility that nuclear fuel rods at a reactor at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPC) Fukushima Daiichi plant may be melting or have melted”.

Experts have said that if the fuel rods have been damaged, it means that it could develop into a breach of the nuclear reactor vessel and the question then becomes one of how strong the containment structure around the vessel is and whether it has been undermined by the earthquake – and if it can withstand the likely aftershocks.

Update 2: I am quoting AJE directly here so that we can get back quickly to the latest news:

“The Fukushima nuclear power plant “may be experiencing nuclear meltdown”, according to reports by Japanese media on Saturday, while the Associated Press says an unnamed Japanese nuclear safety commission official has said a meltdown at nuclear power plant is possible.”

Update 1: Al Jazeera English reports that “scientists are warning that Japan may be facing a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl.” They quote Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert for the Global Security Programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“The events that occurred at these plants, which is the loss of both offsite power and onsite power, is one of the rarest events to happen in a nuclear power plant, and all indications are that the Japanese do not have the situation under control.”

We will continue the live-updates on this developing story here.

Update 23: According to some unverified sources, like this report (Japanese language), fuel rod have been exposed above cooling water level at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Around 50 cm of fuel rod bundle believed to be exposed. Also, we are getting news that the pressure release operation in Fukushima nuclear plant have been halted due to high radio activity.

Update 22: The Guardian summaries the current situation in Japan:

• Diesel generators that normally would have worked as back-ups to keep cooling systems running had been disabled by tsunami flooding.
• Power supply systems to provide emergency electricity for the plants were being put in place, the World Nuclear Association said.
• Both plants are light water reactors operated by the Tokyo Electric Power company (or Tepco):

Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) plant
- has six reactors, three of which were shut down for maintainence. Two of the remaining reactors, Unit 1 has significant problems with a rising temperature and in another the operator says it has lost cooling ability.
– the Unit 1 reactor has seen radiation levels inside its control room rise, and slightly higher radiation levels have been detected outside the reactor. Pressure inside the reactor is twice the normal level, and the operator has been forced to vent radioactive vapor to relieve the pressure.

Fukushima Daini (No 2) plant
– has four reactors, and in units 1, 2 and 4 of them the operator has said it has lost cooling ability.
– Tepco says pressure is stable inside the reactors of the Daini plant but rising in the containment vessels.

• Both plants have been declared to be in a state of emergency by the government, and residents moved outside of a 10km zone around both plants.

Update 21: Here is a map showing the location of the two nuclear power stations that have been declared to be in a state of emergency by the Japanese government:

The Fukushima Daini and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power stations.

Update 20: Reuters report now that TEPCO are having difficulties to open a valve to release pressure at the Daiichi reactor.

Update 19: Bloomberg reports that Tokyo Electric Power Co. has started venting gas from one of the reactors.

“Japan’s government ordered the utility to begin releasing gas to reduce a rise in pressure in the reactor. Radiation spread by the release won’t be at a level dangerous to health, said Ryohei Shiomi, a spokesman at the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. are now also apparently preparing to vent gas from a second reactor at the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant.

Update 18: Reuters report that Japan may only have “hours to prevent nuclear meltdown” following “a highly unusual “station blackout”".

Update 17: The Huffington Post asks if nuclear reactors in the USA could withstand an enormous quake similar to the one in Japan. “We do not believe the safety standards for U.S. nuclear reactors are enough to protect the public today,” Edwin Lyman, senior scientist, global security programs, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. Reuters also have an article explaining what could happen when a reactor loses coolant. And here are some basic background on what’s happening with the Fukushima nuclear plant from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Update 16: The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK have released a statement on the nuclear emergency situation in Japan saying that “today’s incident underlines the constant danger that nuclear power presents”:

Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said “We are deeply saddened at today’s loss of life and hope that the emergency at the Fukushima plant is resolved quickly and without further incident. The policy of building ever more nuclear power stations increases the likelihood that a natural disaster such as today’s earthquake could be significantly worsened or even dwarfed by a nuclear emergency. Both Japan and Britain locate all their nuclear plants on the coast to take advantage of unbroken supplies of cooling water. But this also exposes them to the brunt of both tsunamis and the coastal floods which are likely to become ever more frequent due to climate change. With the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster next month, today’s incident underlines the constant danger that nuclear power presents due to events totally beyond the control of power station operations. We urge the government to reconsider its support for building new nuclear power stations in Britain.”

Update 15: The situation in Fukushima seems to be escalating as the Guardian reports that the cooling systems has now failed at three other reactors at the nuclear power station:

“Now there are reports from nuclear plant operator Tepco that the Fukushima Daini plant has lost cooling to three of its reactors. It was one reactor in the Fukushima Daiichi plant that had been the cause for concern earlier – so this news is certainly unwelcome. According to Dow-Jones, Tepco says that the temperatures of its No 1 and No 2 reactors at its Fukushima Daini nuclear power station are rising, and it has lost control over pressure within the reactors.”

AJE writes now: “With a state of emergency declared at another nuclear reactor, there are now five reactors under a state of emergency – two at Fukushima No.1 plant, and three at the nearby Fukushima No.2 plant.”

Update 14: AJE reports that:

“Dozens of troops trained for chemical disasters have been sent to the Fukushima nuclear plant in case of a radiation leak, along with four vehicles designed for use in atomic, biological and chemical warfare, says defence ministry official Ippo Maeyama.”

And that “a total of 45,000 people living within a 10km radius of the Fukushima nuclear power plant have now been told to evacuate their homes”. This is really a steep increase from the 3000-6000 people who were gonna be evacuated initially.

Update 13: Tyler Durden over at zerohedge.com writes that the Japanese officials only have 24 hours to avoid a core meltdown scenario:

In an interview with Mark Hibbs, a Berlin-based senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonprofit think tank, Newsmax magazine asks – what happens next at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The answer according to the nuclear expert, is that as Fukushima is now well on its way to a full core-melt nuclear accident, a worst case scenario could possibly lead to the same results last seen in 1986 Chernobyl.

Update 12: Reuters reports that Tepco has lost the ability to control reactor pressure at Fukushima Daini nos. 1, 2, 4 reactors. But according to Tepco the pressure in the reactors is still stable.

Update 11: AJE writes that: “Japan’s nuclear safety agency says some radiation has now seeped outside the plant, prompting calls for further evacuation of the area, says the Associated Press news agency.”

Update 10: If you are interested in more live-updates not just about the Fukushima nuclear power plant the Guardian and Al Jazeera English has both fast updates on the situation currently unfolding in Japan.

Update 9: According to AFP the radiation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has reached levels 1,000 times of normal levels. And finally AJE can bring some sense to the story about US involvement. They report that: “Meanwhile, contrary to earlier reports, officials say that the US did not deliver nuclear coolant material, and that Japanese authorities handled the situation themselves.”

Update 8: Japan officials are now expanding the evacuation area around the Fukushima nuclear plant from 3 km to 10 km, Reuters report.

Update 7: An independent nuclear safety analyst tells AJE that Japan officials must “manage a balancing act at the Fukushima nuclear power plant”. Quote from the AJE live-blog:

“He says there is a risk of exposing the public if they try to contain radioactive steam, once vented from the reactor, in the secondary dome – as it may also have been damaged during the earthquake. This means there may be a leak. However, not venting the steam – as the pressure in the reactor builds – may lead to a much worse danger being posed.”

Update 6: Pressure building in the plant was set to be released soon, a move that could result in a radiation leak, officials said. Some 3,000 people who live within a 3km radius of the plant have been evacuated, Kyodo news agency said. Cabinet chief Yukio Edanotol says that:

It’s possible that radioactive material in the reactor vessel could leak outside but the amount is expected to be small and the wind blowing towards the sea will be considered. Residents are safe, after those within a 3km radius were evacuated, and those within a 10km radius staying indoors – so we want people to be calm.

Update 5: The Fukushima nuclear power plant, where cooling systems were knocked out by the quake, is located 240km north of Tokyo. The Huffington Post reports that “the radiation level was rising in the turbine building and the pressure had risen to 1.5 times the designed capacity.” And AJE reports that “officials at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will release “slightly radioactive vapour” to ease pressure in one of the reactors after the cooling system failed following the huge earthquake”.

Update 4: Now we are getting information that “a small radiation leak could occur” at the nuclear plant in Japan:

Update 3: More updates on the situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant from AJE: Nearly 6,000 residents living in a three-kilometre radius of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant, where a cooling failure was reported, have now been ordered to evacuate.

“An instruction has been issued to residents within a radius of three kilometres to evacuate and those within three to 10 kilometres to stay indoors,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano.

“This is an evacuation instruction just for precaution, and there has been no radiation leak from the reactor.”

Update 2: More updates on the nuclear emergency from Reuters who says that the United States has transported coolant to the Fukushima nuclear plant. The report quotes Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, as saying:

“We just had our Air Force assets in Japan transport some really important coolant to one of the nuclear plants. You know Japan is very reliant on nuclear power and they have very high engineering standards, but one of their plants came under a lot of stress with the earthquake and didn’t have enough coolant.”

Update 1: Al Jazeera English reports that: Authorities have told residents living near the Fukushima nuclear plant, hit by a fire earlier, to evacuate the area. Authorities said peole living in a two kilometre radius of the No.2 reactor of the Fukushima No.1 plant should leave.

Ecological unequal exchange, or the zero-sum model, can help us understand many things about the world’s international trade, political order and environmental degradation. It can help put out the air on a few misleading claims about our so-called postmodern western societies and help people understand that Europe is at the top because of ecological imperialism and an ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system.

To fully understand the idea of ecological unequal exchange one must first understand how the stratification system in the world works. This global stratification system, which can also be known as the division of labor, ranks nations into three different categories:

1. The top category is called the core. The world’s wealthiest nations who have enjoyed centuries of social and economic progress at the expense of poorer nations are placed here. Examples of nations placed in the core could be USA, England, Japan and the EU.
2. The second category is called the semi-periphery. Nations placed here mostly acts as a “middleman” to the bigger and wealthier nations in the core. Semi-periphery nations could for example be China, India, Russia and Brazil.
3. The last category is called the periphery. Poor third-world countries, most of who are from Africa and Latin America are placed in this category. These nations are characterized by their enormous exports of cheap labor and natural resources to the core.

Periphery nations are exporting large quantities of low-value products, such as metals and timber, to core nations for consumption. But the core nations are on the other hand not exporting these low-value goods. Instead they are exporting more high-value products such as cars and other technological goods. Simply put, the raw commodities are exported from poor nations to the core market in the rich world where the final product can be worth many times more when it’s been refined. The exported goods from the periphery also involve bigger ecological degradation than exports from the core. This degradation can for example be soil erosion, deforestation, polluted air and the loss of nutrients but also in a higher intensity of energy wasted and CO2 produced. Exports from periphery nations also involve a much higher intensity in underpaid human labor. So besides an unequal ecological exchange there is also an unequal exchange of embodied labor.

The European Union is a large importer of oil, coal, gas, minerals, metals, biomass etc. If you add the weight of all the goods together the EU imports four times more than it actually exports. Compare that to Latin America which exports about six times more than it imports and you can clearly see the difference. Colombia in Latin America imports every year around 10 million tons but their exports are about 70 million tons. Research has also shown that the EU-15 region exports are valued, in terms of money, at 4 times more than its imports. For periphery nations in Africa and Latin America one ton of import from the EU-15 region is worth 10 times more than one ton of export from these periphery nations to the EU-15 core.

You can see this stratification system in a more local environment as well. Consider for example a city and the countryside or even more local: the downtown of the city and its surrounding suburbs. Here the core is the city and the downtown. The countryside and the suburbs are the periphery. This global stratification system is dynamic. Good examples of this are Australia and Ireland who both have been former British colonies but now have advanced into core nations. But the system is still very much static and the unequal structure is kept intact mostly because of domestic political unrest and high levels of social inequality in the periphery nations, worsening terms of trade and unstable product prices on the global market. Many periphery nations also struggle with the legacy of imperialism and its postcolonial political institutions.

The rich nations are maintaining this unequal world system with the help from political and market-based ways. And what might be more shocking, or not, is that they sometimes even do this with sponsored or direct military power from the core nation itself. For example: The core nations are enforcing strong patent and intellectual property right laws and agreements that give a disadvantage to the periphery nations development. Worsening terms of trade, which I mentioned before, are also keeping the prices down on natural resources making it easier and easier for the core nations to keep importing and consuming. This means that periphery nations need to export more and more of their low-value goods to be able to pay for the high-value imports from the core. The USA is now importing more than half of the oil it consumes from nations outside its borders. Most of those imports come from Latin America. Venezuela and Bolivia who are both oil rich nations have lately tried to stand up against the energy and political influence from the core nations. The democratically elected Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has increased his nation’s control of major oil and energy projects from 40% to 60% in recent years. Chavez has used this extra income to raise his people’s living standards. Similar things are happening in Bolivia where the President Evo Morales have nationalized the countries energy industry. This has helped give Morales an approval rating of 80% back home. But core nations such as the USA are not happy over this as it might threaten their increasing oil imports. So both Morales and Chavez have been criticized by the core for their “weak commitment to democracy”. To secure future oil imports USA is now using “force to reassert dominance” via “state terror and coercion” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The nations in the core are, because of their overconsumption and production scale, the main greenhouse gas polluters. Nations in the periphery are also big polluters but they are, according to researchers, hindered to pursue a more efficient and environmental friendly approach. The reason for this is that they are strained by economic debts, lack of technological knowledge and an export dependency which is based on a limited range of production.

You often hear claims by people that the developed nations are moving into a more dematerializing, postconsumerist, postmodern or service-focused economy where they consume more services than actual materialistic products. Many people state that this is a “great environmental victory”. World Bank and WTO analysts claims that exports from developing nations are “continually being upgraded” and that these exports to the core nations are improving developing nations own economic growth and development. But research has shown that developed nations who have moved into this postmodern service-focused economy has not yet lowered emissions in any significant way. Models have also shown that developing countries that take part in the international trade emits more than other periphery nations that are not as actively involved in the trade. The developed world has basically been able to outsource its dirty industries and the worst ecological impacts of production to nations in the periphery.

References:

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Tabb, William K. (2007). “Resource Wars”
• Davis, Mike (2004). “The View from Hubbert’s Peak”

For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?

That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.

At the major United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 more than 100 world leaders met to address the question of global climate change. At the end of the conference 187 nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. Without any “tough details” the agreement said nations should “protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” World leaders managed to get a consensus and reach an agreement but they still had disagreements on what kind of responsibilities nations had under the UNFCCC treaty. The “common but differentiated” phrase seems to have resulted in various different interpretations between the “North” and the “South”. The poor developing nations were, compared to the North, very precise in their interpretation of the phrase and called for the rich developed nations to take the lead in the emission reductions. They also wanted the North to help developing nations in their environmental efforts by transferring large amounts of economic and technologic assistance from the North to the South. The North on the other hand interpreted the phrase a bit differently. According to the UNFCC treaty $625 billion was needed every year for a sustainable development to take place in the developing nations. Around 20% of the money would be paid by below-market loans to the South. But the developed nations never fulfilled their promise of economic and technologic assistance to the South. In the end they paid less than 20% of the $625 billion.

In 1995, three years after the Rio Earth Summit, the first COP conference took place in Berlin, Germany. Here the so called “Berlin Mandate” declared that the developed nations in the North should reduce their emissions first while the developing nations would join in later on. Two years later in 1997 at the COP3 conference in Kyoto, Japan, the US president Bill Clinton actually signed the famous Kyoto Protocol, which called for binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But the protocol was never ratified by the USA because of the US senate which voted unanimously in favor for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Once passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution successfully blocked any climate treaty that was, in their words, “unfair”. Because the Kyoto protocol did not require the developing nations to do any emissions cuts the US senate felt it was “unfair” and refused to ratify it.

And it is now, with the Kyoto protocol, that you can start to clearly see the different positions and opinions the North and the South, rich and poor, developed and developing nations have on what climate justice actually is. Developing nations didn’t want to accept any scheduled emission reduction targets for the future. Any mention by the North that the developing nations should in some way slow down their development and economic growth by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions was met with an “openly hostile negotiating environment” from the South. The Brazilian ambassador Luis Felipe Lampreia stated during the COP3 conference that: “We cannot accept limitations that interfere with our economic development.” And the lead negotiator from China said: “In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus”.

The developed nations are responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 emissions. One person in Bangladesh will during a whole year emit as much CO2 emissions as one average person living the UK will in only 11 days. A single power plant in Great Britain will produce more CO2 emissions, every year, than all 139 million people living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique combined. It is also clear that developing nations are much more vulnerable to the effects a changing climate brings such as droughts, rising tides, floods and tropical storms than rich and developed nations are. And nine Chinese and eighteen Indians release as much greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere as one average American does. The USA is alone responsible for over 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but only around 4% of the world’s total population lives in the USA. A whopping 136 developing nations are on the other hand together responsible for 24% of global emissions.

But the former US President George H. W. Bush once notoriously stated that “the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation”. His son, George W. Bush later dismissed the Kyoto protocol completely by claiming that the treaty “would cause serious harm to the US economy” and that it is “an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns”.

Even in light of these clearly uneven numbers the North’s perception of climate justice seems to be to disregard any kinds of historical responsibilities or economical differences, the very same issues that the South thinks are the basis of climate justice. And these rather different perceptions on climate justice between the rich and poor nations help fuel an deteriorating negotiating atmosphere.

When it comes to the negotiations during these summits, like the COP15 this past December, the income differences between developing and developed nations plays a big role in creating a hostile negotiating environment for the delegates. It is also one of the more direct examples on how inequality can dampen cooperation on climate change. Attending these yearly COP summits obviously costs money. Nations need to be able to pay for their delegate’s salaries and accommodations. Other costs involves scientists, lawyers, translators, economists and consultants that can help the nations delegation in the actual negotiations, with their draft proposals, legal argumentation as well as being able to offer counterarguments and proposals to the demands of other nations.

“The reason why many poor small countries are hardly represented in negotiations that concern them directly, writes Robert Wade, is that they cannot afford the cost of hotels, offices, and salaries in places like Washington DC and Geneva, which must be paid not in PPP [purchasing power parity] dollars but in hard currency bought with their own currency at market exchange rates (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 15).”

Unfortunately many of the less developed nations (LDCs) cannot afford all this and most of the time they will have to go without this much needed help. Just a little side note to show how just bad these things can get: At a seminar in the aftermaths of COP15, at the Lund University in Sweden, a CPS student from Bangladesh told us about how he had, at a visit to the Bella center (where the climate talks were being held), walked into the delegation from Bangladesh. And after a short chat with them he ended up helping the delegation with translations at the big UN summit.

The delegates also need to attend all the formal and informal meetings during the climate summit. And these can be many and scheduled to take place at the same time. If you have several delegates you can easily divide up the work and focus on certain issues, read every single document and draft texts. That’s why the more delegates you can send the better. Studies have shown that there is a great difference between the numbers of delegates developed and developing nations are sending to these COP summits. For example: To COP6, in the Netherlands, the USA sent 99 delegates and the European Commission sent 76 delegates. Many developing nations such as African and small island states were lucky if they could even afford to scramble together a delegation consisting of one to three delegates. Recent studies and experiences at COP10 in 2004 confirm and back this up. During COP6 the chairs decided to split up the negotiations into smaller groups, subgroups and even subsubgroups so that they could easier cover all the climate related issues in an easier manner. Sure, this move can in an equal and perfect world make the debates and meetings flow much smoother. But with the current inequality between developed and developing nations it can make things worse. As you can imagine this decision gave a huge advantage and “agenda-setting power” to the developed nations who had been able to send many more delegates to the COP summit than the poorer nations had.

Another problematic side effect of not being able to send enough people to the climate summits is that the developing nations delegates often gets “buried” in documents and papers. This of course leads to the delegation losing its strength and energy. In the last hours of the summit they could then be presented with a document or proposal to a treaty which is already done and beyond alteration and forced to accept or reject it in an unrealistic short period of time. The developed nations use this to get a tactical advantage of the developing nations. They can offer a document at the last hour and pressure everyone to sign it. If the developing countries don’t accept it they are later labeled by the developing nations as the “bad guy” and the ones responsible for wrecking the climate talks (Huffington Post, 2009). At COP6, for example, “commitments were imposed by muscular chairmanship, or gaveled through without reaction from negotiators exhausted to the point of sleep,” Ashton and Wang claim. But this approach does not always succeed as can be seen by the walkout by G77 delegates in 2003 at the Cancun trade negotiations, or from the failure of the COP6 summit where China and the G77 group felt marginalized by the developed nations. Or from the walkout by African nations at the latest COP15 summit in Copenhagen.

The nasty behind-the-back tactics and behaviors used in the past by developing nations were also present at the latest COP. During the first week of the COP15 summit in Copenhagen a potential final agreement, called the “Danish text”, was leaked to the Guardian. The draft text was apparently worked out by developed nations such as the UK, US and Denmark and planned to be adapted by nations during the final week of the summit. The draft agreement made the developing countries “furious” as it would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Many NGOs, commentators and political leaders have criticized these COP summits and the tactics being used as unfair and even undemocratic. At the end of COP15 the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for example called the summit “undemocratic”. Raman Mehta from Action Aid India said this in a statement, in light of the “Danish text”, that:

“The global community trusted the Danish government to host a fair and transparent process but they have betrayed that trust. Most importantly, they are betraying those who are disproportionately impacted by climate change and whose voices are not being heard. This unfair behaviour strikes a blow to all efforts to achieve justice and equity in the climate change negotiations process (quoted from Friends of the Earth, 2009).”

George Monbiot’s verdict on the COP15 summit wasn’t much better. He called it “stupid” and labeled the organizers and attendees of the summit as incompetent:

“This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10 hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it’s surprising that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the same old pig-headed wrestling.”

One also need to keep in mind that local environmental problems such as preventing soil erosion, providing clean drinking water, treating sewage and slowing down the spread of deserts are for most developing nations a much more critical and pressing issue than the more global ones. For developed nations the more global environmental issues such as climate change, ozone depletion and habitat loss are higher up on their priority list. This means that the developing nations need to put more effort into pursuing the South that the global issues should be a higher priority for them.

At the same time many delegates and policy makers from the less developed nations fear that the nations in the core of the world system, which I explained earlier, might just use the climate and environmental concerns to cover up their real agenda: keeping the periphery nations underdeveloped. After being literally forced to accept trade-related, intellectual and property-rights laws and agreements that gives an advantage to the North many South policy makers and even academics hold this opinion of mistrust. And this is a reason to why there is such a big “climate of mistrust” at the COP negotiations. The North has almost constantly failed to keep their promises of financial aid, technological transfer, ignored many of the ecological problems in the South and used tactics to marginalize the South at negotiations. So it’s not really that hard to understand that any suggestions from the North that the South should limit their development, for the good of global environmental issues, are met with a dismissive response from the developing nations.

Final Thoughts

So the lack of power and the extreme poverty and underdevelopment among many of the developing nations leaves them vulnerable in negotiations with the North. It’s more expensive for developing nations to purchase environmental technology and knowledge as they have to be paid with real cash and not credits or loans from the North. This makes it hard for them to perform any kinds of meaningful emission reductions or take part in the COP summits on equal terms.

The wealthy developed nations believe that climate justice is when an agreement involves all parties, both developed and developing nations. Because, they argue, the non-Annex I nations will in a near future increase their emissions with so much that they must be included in a climate treaty. The poorer developing nations on the other hand perceive this in another manner. The climate crisis is a result from the rich North’s excessive consumption. And so they argue they also have the right, just like the North, to build and develop their economy using cheap fossil fuels.

The ozone layer crisis during the 1980’s is a good example of how the world can come together to combat global environmental issues. The negotiations back then was just as hard and complex as the climate talks are today. During the negotiations a Chinese delegate said that: “The call for modernization is so irresistible that China will continue to produce these ozone depleting chemicals,” unless, of course they and other developing nations received financial compensation for their efforts. India was equally tough in their negotiations and their environment minister said in a statement that: “We didn’t destroy the layer. You did. I’m saying that you [the West] have the capability and the money to restore what you have destroyed” (Do you recognize the style of the statements back then to the ones in today’s climate debate?). In the end the North agreed to give financial aid to the developing nations so that they could afford to take proper actions and protect the ozone layer.

But the current climate change negotiations are taking place in an even tougher “climate of mistrust” between the rich and poor. This mistrust is based on decades of Western promises not kept in global environmental and economic matters. To get rid of this suspicion and mistrust that is sabotaging efforts to secure a climate deal the North needs to understand their historical responsibility in this matter. As well as taking social and economic issues into account when negotiating about climate targets. The North could do this by offering a new and fairer global environmental and development treaty that clearly shows their commitments in this issue.

“They could do this by providing greater “environmental space” to late developers, supplying meaningful sums of environmental assistance, funding aid for adaption and dealing with local environmental issues as well as global issues like climate change, and by identifying and investing in win-win technologies and sectors that both address local environmental issues and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 217).”

Basically the North needs to stop treating the weaker nations in the South as “second-class citizens” and work on rebuilding the South’s trust. Until they do we won’t get a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal (Or a planet with a habitable biosphere!).

References

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Age of Stupid, “UK Priemier: Message from the President of the Maldives” (2009)
• The Guardian, “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure” (2009)
• United Nations Earth Summit+5
• The Huffington Post, Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza, “Climate Headed for Crash Landing” (2009)
• Goodman, Amy, “The Climate Divide: Dispute Between Rich and Poor Nations Widens at UN Copenhagen Summit” (2009)
• Monbiot, George, ”Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns” (2009)
• Democracy Now, ”Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on How to Tackle Climate Change” (2009)
• The Guardian, ”Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak” (2009)
• Friends of the Earth International, ”danish government slammed for bias and secrecy in role as president of un climate conference” (2009)