The decision to include nuclear power (in addition to gas) among green energies split the European Commission. We think a bad decision, that could seriously damage the credibility of the European Green Transition. And the mistake is not in relying on technology, but in falling into the rhetoric of technology.
For decades, the European Union has been seriously engaged in the challenge of overcoming fossil energies and a development model which, in the eyes of all non-partisan observers, is not sustainable from both an environmental and a social point of view.
On one side, global warming threatens not only biodiversity but even the survival of the human species, e environmental degradation, including deforestation, brings out new risks to the point of making the outbreak of pandemics more likely; in short, humanity has entered a collision course with planet Earth.
On the other, disparities in the distribution of wealth, incomes and opportunities for people's emancipation have expanded to unbearable levels even in rich countries. It is a fault line that can shake the social contract.
Gas is not like coal or oil…
Faced with these emergencies, which our continent certainly cannot solve on its own, the EU has become a global beacon of hope, building concrete perspectives with its commitment to the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the acceleration Green Deal and the Next Generation EU.
A pillar of the Green Transition is decarbonisation by 2050, when the EU wants to become the first continent with zero CO2 emissions. Fundamental to this aim are energy policies aimed at saving energy consumption and, especially, at transforming sources from fossils (coal, oil and related products) to renewable ones (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, etc.).
From this last point of view, it is useful to distinguish the more and less harmful ones among the fossil sources and it seems therefore legitimate to treat gas with lower penalties than coal and oil, because the former produces less CO2 than the latter.
…but nuclear power can only be “cleaned” with fusion
It is a different matter for nuclear energy. Although we often hear about “clean” next-generation nuclear power, almost all scientists believe that the energy of atomic sources can become "clean" only when we pass from fission to fusiongoal not achieved so far. Therefore, as far as is known, at the state of the art nuclear power cannot and must not be considered "clean".
Even though next-generation reactors have reduced the likelihood of lethal malfunctions, catastrophic events cannot be excluded when relying on nuclear power. Therefore, it seems right to encourage research towards nuclear fusion, but it seems a mess to want to give the nuclear energy sources available today the stamp of "green" energies. The probability, even very low, of catastrophic events suggests not exposing yourself to such risks, adhering as a precaution to the principle of responsibility proposed by Hans Jonas, the founder of the philosophical thought of sustainability. Given a complex context with uncertain scientific determinants, the precautionary principle it offers a guiding criterion of human action according to awareness (of risk uncertainty) and responsibility (of danger management).
In short, from this point of view, if inserting gas as a transitory "green" source can have its rationale, extending the "green" sticker to nuclear power represents an aberrant solution, dictated by reasons which, perhaps based on vested interests, are neither logical nor transparent.
A development model that kills the planet
This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the famous report "The Limits to Growth", drawn up by luminaries from Boston's MIT on commission from the Club of Rome. The report predicted that, without serious corrections, the prevailing development model would collide with the limits of natural resources, leading humanity to socio-environmental collapse. The lively debate that ensued then was quickly silenced by the rhetoric of technology. I mean, really from the XNUMXs the neoliberal vision asserted itself according to which man, relying on the stimuli of market prices, would have found all the technological solutions necessary to overcome those limits. And indeed, technological advances have been exceptional, undoubtedly contributing to improving the human condition, at least from a material point of view. However, that development pattern has continued to damage the environment (polluting and pouring increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere thus triggering global warming) and to produce inequality in society, questioning the proper functioning of market prices and calling the FridaysForFuture demonstrations of young people in search of a more just future for themselves and for the generations to come.
Aurelio Peccei, the founder of the Club of Rome, said "technology cannot and must not be stopped (...), but we must guide it towards the good of the community". The turning point impressed in Brussels, by a majority, on “green” nuclear power is a choice in the name of the rhetoric of technology, a wrong choice which it is to be hoped will be revised as soon as possible. If this were not the case, beyond the risks inherent in the choice itself, this step would risk scarring the great progress made so far and those being planned on the European Green Transition.
