Comments on Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

About, about, in reel and rout

The death-fires danced at night;

The water, like a witch’s oils,

Burnt green, and blue and white.

Ah! Well a-day! What evil looks

Had I from old and young!

Instead of a cross, the Albatross

About my neck was hung.

(The Rime of the Ancient Mariner)

Note: This is an updated version of a paper prepared for the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. Electronic version does not include graphics.

1. Summary

2. Recommendations

a) That an international sustainable energy agency must be established with the aim to promote and assist in the development of energy efficiency, and renewable environmentally safe energy.

Developing countries have a right to energy assistance in order to raise their standard of living to that of the developed world. It has been estimated that in order for the developing countries to reach such a standard, their energy production would need to double by the year 2025. (J. Holdren, The Transition to Costlier Energy as cited in P. Ehrlich and A. Ehrlich, Healing the Planet, Addison Wesley, !993 , p 43. Ehrlich and Ehrlich note that this estimate of energy needs takes into account the likely population growth over that time. After 2025 they predict that the population will stabilize.)

There needs to be an alternative international energy agency with the objective of promoting non-polluting, economic, renewable energy options. The United Nations Committee on the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy, for example, recommended the creation of UN agency to promote and assist in the development of solar energy, the low impact energy source with the most potential.  ( Commemoration of  the Tenth Anniversary of the Adoption of the Nairobi Programme of Action for the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Source of Energy: Report of the intergovernmental Group of Experts on New and Renewable Energy,   February 3-14, 1992.)

        i) Human Health and the Environment

a) Nuclear accidents

Chernobyl, for example, released over 300 times the radiation released by the Hiroshima bomb, and contaminated at least 20 countries.(   David Naples,  "Chernobyl's  Lengthening Shadow",  Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,  September 1993.) In Finland many reindeer had to be killed due to radioactive contamination. 99% of the land in Belarus is contaminated to some degree and will remain so for up to 250,000 years.

Over 800,000 children in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and surrounding states are at high risk of contracting leukemia or other cancers as a result of the accident. There is a 300% increase in congenital birth defects, blood and nervous system disorders and cancer in the area. Thyroid cancer increased 1000%. These health problems will continue to appear, particularly in children, for 1000-10,000 generations.(Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster Fact Sheet No. 1.  Chernobyl Children's Project, January 1994.) Independent scientists have estimated that between 280,000 and 500,000 deaths will result worldwide from the accident. (Greenpeace Environmental Trust-Nuclear Power Public Document.)

It has been claimed that the RBMK reactor is fundamentally more dangerous than other reactors and that this is the reason for the Chernobyl accident occurring. This is not true. The Chernobyl accident occurred primarily through human error. (Ulrike Fink et al, The International Control of Atomic Energy Agency- 35 Years Promotion of Nuclear Energy, Anti-Atom International, Austria.) In fact, in 1983 Mr. Semenov, Head of the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy and Safety praised the RBMK reactors for their safety features.(IAEA Bulletin 25 (1983) No. 2.) IAEA reassurances that such an accident cannot happen in other reactors are misleading and fallacious.

b) Nuclear waste

c) Nuclear transport

        ii) Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

"The development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are much of their course interchangeable and interdependent." The committee further concluded that "...there is no prospect of security against atomic warfare" in an international system where nations are "free to develop atomic energy but only pledged not to use it for bombs." (A Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy,  Secretary of State's Committee on Atomic Energy Board of Consultants,  Washington DC March 16, 1946, cited in Plutonium and the NPT, Levanthal, NCI, November 18, 1993).                     

Subsequent events have given proof of this statement. The development of nuclear weapons by France emerged from a nuclear program which many scientists believed was only for civilian purposes. (L.  Scheinman Atomic Energy Policy in France under the Fourth Republic, Princeton University Press,   1965.) A number of states including parties to the NPT such as Iraq and North Korea, have received technical assistance in the development of nuclear energy, only to redirect this technology into a nuclear weapons program.

Frank von Hippel, adviser to the US government, has noted that "Civilian nuclear energy programs provide a convenient cover, as well as the training, technology and nuclear material necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons."(F. von Hippel, Citizen Scientist, Touchstone, NY 1991. p202)

The increase in production and reprocessing of plutonium from civilian nuclear reactors means that diversion into nuclear weapons becomes even harder to prevent. The manufacture of nuclear weapons is technically not difficult once fissile material is obtained. Civilian stocks of separated plutonium, currently at 122 tonnes, are projected to surpass military stocks by the year 2000 and will reach 550 tonnes by 2010. (World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium, Albright, Berkhout and Walker, 1992,  Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.) The recent diversion of Russian plutonium into private hands demonstrates the increasing likelihood that such diversion could enable nuclear weapons production by a growing number of states, including those without nuclear power, and also by non-state entities.

When the "Atoms for Peace" program was first launched it was claimed that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. This claim has proven to be blatantly incorrect, as costs for nuclear power plants are now on average above $1 billion to build, and the costs of accidents, decommissioning and downtime have yet to be fully accounted for, let alone the unquantified economic costs of the damage to human health and the environment.

The Chernobyl accident alone could end up costing US$358 Billion by the year 2000.(Yurt Kuryukin, Chief Economist Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering, design company for the Chernobyl reactor.  As reported in " The Pacific Rings of Fire",  Greenpeace 1993.  The official Russian government estimate of costs is $120 billion.)

The development of environmentally safe, renewable energy systems has been hindered by low budgets for research and development, compared to nuclear energy which has had considerable government subsidization for research and development. (From 1978-91, research and development spending on nuclear energy in IAEA member countries amounted to $72 billion [ 63% of total energy R&D spending] while only $10 billion [9%] was spent on R&D for solar and other renewable energies [Source "Power Surge", C. Flavin and H Lenssen, Worldwatch, NY 1994.]) Despite this, the per unit cost for most sustainable energy sources is cheaper than for nuclear energy, competitive with fossil fuels and constantly reducing. (The cost of electricity from photovoltaic modules for example has reduced from $60 per Watt in 1975 to $ $ per Watt in 1993.  ( Average   prices. Source: "Power Surge",  C. Flavin and H Lenssen, Worldwatch, NY 1994).)

6. Energy Alternatives

       i) Energy efficiency

Current consumption of energy by the developed world is inefficient. The developed countries could reduce their energy consumption without damage to their economies or standard of living by using energy efficiency techniques such as minimal processing, recycling, use of energy efficient machinery, and more efficient energy management. (Holdren (1991) has estimated an optimum energy consumption maintaining standards of living enjoyed by the developed world would be 3kW   per person. Current energy consumption per capita in the developed world is 7.5 kW. Holdren argues that this could be reduced to 3.8kW by 2025, and to 3kW by 2100 using energy efficient technology and practices.) Utilizing energy efficiency would in fact improve the standard of living globally as it would reduce the impact of overconsumption of energy on the environment and human health.

        ii) Alternative energy sources

However, even without nuclear energy, fossil fuel use could be considerably reduced with the development of solar, biomass, wind, geothermal and other renewable non-polluting energy sources. Such renewable energy sources could fill the bulk of the world’s energy requirements by the mid 21st Century. ( Holdren has suggested that global energy production should increase from 13 terawatts (TW) currently produced to 19 TW by 2025, and to 30TW by 2100 in order to provide 3kW per capita globally. (Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1993) have estimated that biomass could theoretically produce up to 25TW (but a realistic figure is much less), solar energy could produce 50TW, and other renewable energies such as wind, wave and geothermal power could produce 2-3 TW.)

a) Biomass

Biomass involves the generation of energy from plant material through decomposition, burning or other means. Biomass currently provides one-third of the energy used in the developing world. When produced sustainably the burning of energy crops produces no net increase in global carbon dioxide levels. (Pierre Trudeau, Energy for a Habitable World, p 52.)

b) Solar energy

Marginally productive or non-productive desert land is ideal for medium to large scale solar energy projects. In a study of possible sites for large scale production of solar energy in the US, a desert area in Nevada was chosen as the most productive. ("Nevada Test Site Solar Feasibility Study",   prepared for the US Department of Energy, April 1994.)

c) Wind

In 1988, 2% of California's energy was produced by windmills.(Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1991), p 56. Flavin and Lenssen (Worldw Power Surge, atch 1994) report that wind could potentially provide as much as 20% of the energy needs of many states.) Wind farms require large amounts of space, but can be established on land also used for agriculture or horticulture. The cost of electricity from wind in the US has reduced from 20c per kilowatt-hour in the 1980s to 5c per kilowatt-hour, and is expected to decline further. ( Flavin and Levenssen, p191)

d) Geothermal

Geothermal energy uses steam from underground volcanic areas to provide heat or to generate electricity. It is currently utilized in Japan, Aotearoa-New Zealand, Hawaii, California and Iceland. Japan, which currently has 270 megawatts of geothermal capacity, has a potential of 250 times that amount, or double the country's current nuclear energy capacity (Flavin and Levenssen, Power Surge, p120-123.) At least 40 countries, including the USA, could produce a considerable percentage of their energy needs from geothermal reserves. Flavin and Levenssen, p 191.

7. Unsound Promotion of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is now being recognized by many countries in the developed world as being uneconomic, unsafe and unnecessary. As a result developed countries are now turning away from nuclear energy. In the United States all reactor orders placed over the past 20 years have subsequently been cancelled. In Canada the nuclear industry has not placed an order for a reactor since 1974. ( The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, World Watch Institute 1992.)Greece, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Finland and Germany have all halted construction of further reactors. (The Pacific Rings of Fire, Greenpeace, 1993.)

The IAEA acts on this aim through information dissemination and technical assistance. The IAEA has established a number of avenues for accomplishing this including operating research and service laboratories, maintaining the International Nuclear Information System, holding promotional conferences and meetings, provision of technical training, providing nuclear equipment, and publishing bulletins, newsbriefs and other promotional documents. ( See "Activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency relevant to Article IV of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, " UN Documents, Geneva, NPT/Conf. 1995/PC.III/8.)

The IAEA is involved in a number of nuclear endeavors including food irradiation and the use of radio-isotopes in medicine, geothermal exploration and scientific research. However the IAEA has noted that "...promotion of nuclear power will be the Agency's most important contribution to the economy and general welfare." ( " A Long-Term Programme for IAEA",  IAEA Bulletin 5 (1963), No.4.)

"In the longer term it is inevitable and indispensable to use nuclear power and therefore any developing country with fairly high levels of development like Thailand must begin to prepare for a nuclear period."    (Bangkok Post, 1991, as reported in "Power Move; the Nuclear Salesmen Target the Third World."  WorldWatch, Vol. 7, No. 2, Mar-Apr 1994, p31.)

To this end, the IAEA downplays the environmental, economic and health risks associated with nuclear energy. In 1991, for example, the IAEA downplayed the effects of the Chernobyl accident arguing that the Soviets had over-reacted to the contamination and that "the relocation and foodstuff restrictions should have been less extensive." ( " The International Chernobyl Project-An Overview",   IAEA, Vienna 1991.)

In addition the IAEA at times promotes a reduction in safety standards for nuclear energy. S. Elkund, Director General of the IAEA at the time, noted that "...there is a double standard in safety requirements by which nuclear undertakings are compelled to be safer than all others...and this imposes an economic penalty on nuclear power..." (Safety of Nuclear Reactors, IAEA Bulletin 4 (1962) No. 3.)

8. NPT "Right" to Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power threatens the health and life of citizens currently living as well as those in subsequent generations. This right is not abrogated by the necessity of energy development as the "deprivation of life may be justified only in defense of life" ( C.K. Boyle, " The Concept of Arbitrary Deprivation of Life", in B.G.  Ramcharan (ED),  The Right to Life in International Law, Martinus Hijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1985, p 221.)

9. Nuclear Energy and the 2000 Review of the NPT

10. Conclusion

The choice is yours. Please make it wisely

. 

. 

.