Ethical activities – nuclear and GM?

[thomaslgj]

In the Social section in the Sustainability policy, there is a bullet point reading:

We refuse to work with organisations involved with ethically dubious activities such as military systems, tobacco, junk food, nuclear power, hunting, animal testing and genetically modified crops.

Just wondering whether it is a good idea to list nuclear as unethical? According to the IPCC all scenarios compatible with 1.5 degrees require nuclear energy. Although there are waste storage issues, it is generally considered the cleanest of all renewable energy alternatives. Seems a bit odd to outright boycott it in a sustainability policy.

The same goes for “genetically modified crops”. The scientific consensus is that there is no more harm using GM crops/foods than conventional ones.

I realize these are hot topics inside the environmental orgs, just wanted to point out these are not obvious conclusions to reach for a sustainability policy. Some might want to add them to their list, but I don't believe they should be defaults.

Edit: I should add, other than that, I love the concept :D

[teor2345]

The policy doesn't seem to distinguish between "ethical", "renewable", and "sustainable":

• ethical: consistent with the organisation's or the community's values
• renewable: an supply of fuel that is constantly renewed (rather than one that is extracted and used)
• sustainable: at the current and highest projected rates of use, the energy source will last for thousands of years (longer than the current industrial system), without a breakdown of the system

As far as I understand the science:

• current military systems are not renewable, and their fuel use is not sustainable
• tobacco and junk food are renewable, but their high health costs may not be sustainable
• nuclear power is not renewable, but it is likely sustainable
• hunting (and animal harvesting/agriculture) is renewable, but our current use of animals is not sustainable
• animal testing and genetically modified crops are renewable and sustainable

It's also possible to use renewable energy sources in a way that's not sustainable: hydro and geothermal are common examples.

I don't know exactly how to move forward here, but I agree that confusing unethical and unsustainable practices is unhelpful.

[teor2345]

According to the IPCC all scenarios compatible with 1.5 degrees require nuclear energy.

That's not quite accurate. The IPCC gives a large range for nuclear by 2050, and the minimum is quite low. By 2100, there are scenarios that have no nuclear. (And modelled scenarios are not prescriptive designs.)

nuclear from 3–66 EJ yr−1 (minimum–maximum range). These ranges reflect both uncertainties in technological development and strategic mitigation portfolio choices. {2.4.2}

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/#home-chapter-2

Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators decrease (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018)365. One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b)366. Some 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project about 95 EJ yr−1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/

Although there are waste storage issues, it is generally considered the cleanest of all renewable energy alternatives.

I've never heard this claim before. What's your reference?

[thomaslgj]

That's not quite accurate. The IPCC gives a large range for nuclear by 2050, and the minimum is quite low. By 2100, there are scenarios that have no nuclear. (And modelled scenarios are not prescriptive designs.)

Sure, but relying on the minimum is probably not a good idea. Regarding the Paris Agreement, the IAEA states:

The Agreement points to a continued increased role in the use of nuclear power in the longer term. Its advantages in terms of climate change mitigation, as well as energy security and non-climatic environmental and socio-economic benefits, are important reasons why many countries intend to introduce nuclear power in the coming decades, or to expand existing programmes. Source: https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change

I've never heard this claim before. What's your reference?

It was of the top of my head, but close enough: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/CO2_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IPCC.png (IPCC 2014)

And IEA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IEA.PNG

However, my point here isn't pushing nuclear, it is only that it shouldn't be on this list.

[teor2345]

Although there are waste storage issues, it is generally considered the cleanest of all renewable energy alternatives. Seems a bit odd to outright boycott it in a sustainability policy.

I've never heard this claim before. What's your reference?

It was of the top of my head, but close enough: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/CO2_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IPCC.png (IPCC 2014)

And IEA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IEA.PNG

Let's be more precise here:

• the lifecycle CO2-equivalent of nuclear is one of the lowest of all generation sources, assuming current energy and resource CO2-intensity levels

Since nuclear produces highly toxic waste, it's best not to call it clean.

However, my point here isn't pushing nuclear, it is only that it shouldn't be on this list.

Sure, nuclear certainly shouldn't be on a list of unsustainable or high CO2 intensity generation technologies.

But many people argue that nuclear waste storage is unsustainable, given the long lifetime of the waste. And others argue that it's not realistic to expect that nuclear's meltdown and weapons risks can be consistently managed. (And historically, they have not been.)

So it depends if we want to look at the whole picture for each generation method. Or just focus on how long we can use it without the planet's ecosystems and human society collapsing. Which is the priority right now.

In any case, I think it would help to split the list into sustainable-focused choices, and ethical-focused choices.

I'm not sure if it's helpful to make a distinction between sustainable and renewable - extracting fuel that will never be replaced is not renewable, but that doesn't matter if there is lots of it. (Mining has other environmental impacts, but again, that's a big picture issue.)

[teor2345]

We could use this ticket as a chat for ages, but that's really not the point.

Do you want to propose a specific change in a pull request?