Ever since the massive earthquake hit north-eastern Japan on 11 March, my email and SMS inboxes have been flooded with concerns from friends and colleagues. Living in a country where hazards strike and often turn into devastating disasters, I am not surprised to hear expressions of concern coming from strangers--shop keepers that I meet for the first time, for example.
Fortunately, no family member or close friends have been hurt directly from the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. My parents' dog may suffer from a urinary track infection, as his daily walks have been limited due to temporary stopping of the elevators in my parents' 26-storey apartment building in central Tokyo. Another family member living in Tokyo had to walk 4 hours to get home, as the train services were stopped. But these inconveniences are minor compared to the damage and suffering of people directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. My thoughts are with them.
At the same time, I worry immensely about the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants in Fukushima. State of nuclear emergency has been called, with six reactors reportedly having difficulties with their cooling systems (14 March, Sydney Morning Herald). I am not sure if we should be consoled by comments from experts who say that a partial meltdown "is not a disaster" and a complete meltdown is not likely (14 March, Reuters). What bothers me is the conflicting and contradictory information I am seeing in the various media, in Japanese and in English. In addition to the confusion, there is obviously much covering-up going on, and the truth to the extent of damage may only be uncovered later.
Fortunately, no family member or close friends have been hurt directly from the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. My parents' dog may suffer from a urinary track infection, as his daily walks have been limited due to temporary stopping of the elevators in my parents' 26-storey apartment building in central Tokyo. Another family member living in Tokyo had to walk 4 hours to get home, as the train services were stopped. But these inconveniences are minor compared to the damage and suffering of people directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. My thoughts are with them.
At the same time, I worry immensely about the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants in Fukushima. State of nuclear emergency has been called, with six reactors reportedly having difficulties with their cooling systems (14 March, Sydney Morning Herald). I am not sure if we should be consoled by comments from experts who say that a partial meltdown "is not a disaster" and a complete meltdown is not likely (14 March, Reuters). What bothers me is the conflicting and contradictory information I am seeing in the various media, in Japanese and in English. In addition to the confusion, there is obviously much covering-up going on, and the truth to the extent of damage may only be uncovered later.
Having lived in two of the top ten countries with a high reliance on nuclear energy (France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, while Japan's is 30%) (IAEA 2008), I cannot pretend to be a simple bystander to the whole issue.
The nuclear crisis in Japan is literally adding fuel to opposition to building of new reactors around the world (13 March, Beyond Nuclear). In Germany and Switzerland, plans to build or renew nuclear power plants are being and suspended (14 March, the Guardian).
The advantage of nuclear energy is that it does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not emit greenhouse gasses (Darwill 2010). It has been touted by many a viable option to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, the question we should ask ourselves is this: do we want to resort to nuclear power to combat climate change?
In addition to problems such as environmental pollution (radioactive contamination and nuclear waste disposal) and concerns over safety such as those we are currently facing in Japan, the fundamental issue we should be considering is that “nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything” (Solnit 2007). Nuclear power plants, like power plants that rely on fossil fuel, retain “the big infrastructure of centralized power production and […] the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power”. Simply substituting nuclear with fossil fuel is not changing the fundamental problem we have: our increased need for energy.
Nearly ten years ago, I had a conversation with Prof Akio Morishima, former President of the Central Environmental Council of the Environment Agency of Japan. After learning that he spent much of his career fighting for victims of environmental pollution during Japan’s rapid economic growth in the 1960s and 70s, I was surprised to hear that he supported the development of nuclear energy. While admitting that nuclear energy is problematic, he asked, "but what are the alternatives?" The possibility that our increasing need for energy could be curbed had not occurred to him.
The challenge we thus face is this: to fundamentally change the way we live and suppress our insatiable energy use. Unless we do so, it is unlikely we can stop climate change. And that, in my opinion, is what makes climate change an extremely contentious issue.
I will be closely following the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants. This is a human-made disaster following a geological disaster.
Top photo taken from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/bigpics/japan-disaster, subtitled "Houses are swept by a tsunami in Natori City in northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011".
Top photo taken from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/bigpics/japan-disaster, subtitled "Houses are swept by a tsunami in Natori City in northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011".
No comments:
Post a Comment