Connect with us

Environment

Climate change & energy crisis: Is it time to reconsider nuclear energy?

Published

on

nuclear energy

nuclear energy

In the 21st century, human kind is struggling to escape a self-created double edged blade, which is getting sharper with each day. It’s the blade of catastrophe, the duo of energy crisis and climate change. The world needs energy and it’s getting it but at a great cost. Burning fossil fuels supplied the major part. While the present emission levels strictly prohibit anymore burning to avoid irreversible damages of ‘climate change’, the energy requirement of the world is rising simultaneously, asking to burn every bit of it or anything that could produce energy. Because, now the world can’t do without it.

Renewable energy resources look the greenest option, but presently, available technologies can’t make best of it to supply energy good enough to replace fossil fuels. The present technologies used in the development of photovoltaic, wind turbines, hydro-turbines, bio-fuels, fuel cell etc. are still developing and aren’t efficient enough to fill the gap. On the other hand, the battery technologies are struggling for larger storage capacities. In a way, both the production and storage of the energy produced through renewable sources of energy aren’t in position to put the world completely off the traditional grid. It’ll take years, but it might be too late at that point of time. What we need is an immediate replacement with zero-emission. Presently, there is only one solution, which is most promising, but comes with great hazards and criticism. It’s the irony of present civilization that nuclear power is the best option, but isn’t completely safe. Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have already demonstrated the horrors of nuclear radiations.

But, as a matter of fact, nuclear power is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear power in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth’s climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. Nuclear power has important implications for our national security. Inexpensive nuclear power, in combination with fuel cell technology, could significantly reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Recently, in November 2013, an open letter from renowned climate and energy scientists again flared the debate on the use of nuclear power to tackle both energy crisis and climate change. These four climate experts included James Hansen, former NASA scientist-turned-activist, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, climatologist Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel of MIT. The letter proposed development and deployment of “safer nuclear energy systems.” They laid emphasis on reconsidering the use of nuclear power in light of the newer, safer technologies like ‘Fast Reactor’. The four of the best experts admit that presently it’s not possible to save the world through any single source. The world need a mix of energy and nuclear power is the best candidate in their view. So, now, it’s time to ask the same old question about testing of nuclear power. Is right or wrong to start testing nuclear energy with newer technologies or not? Should governments refrain from using nuclear energy in a time when countries like France, China, an Korea have managed to squeeze the same source efficiently along with reducing a great lot of emissions?

Much controversy has already emanated regarding the issue of nuclear power. As time draws on, many people are concerned that at some point the world oil supply will vanish and we will have to compensate for its loss by using an alternative power source. Some people predict that this event will occur early in the twenty first century and for this reason, the question has been raised about what alternative power source we will use. Nuclear power seems to be a popular choice with many people, and many people believe that nuclear power is inexpensive and creates no air pollution.

However, while this may be true, it is also evident that the radioactivity released during accidents at nuclear power plants has caused many deaths and environmental damage. Thus, a number of people are opposed to nuclear power; execrate the use of nuclear power, its use in our society and at the Western Nuclear Power Industry in particular. In my opinion, nuclear power should be banned and there are many risks taken when nuclear power is used. For one thing, there is always the risk that a meltdown or reactor leakage could occur.

CbabyInOrphanagePF

Furthermore, there are also problems in storing waste from nuclear reactors, the issue of thermal pollution and concerns about worker safety and security. There is the possibility that nuclear reactors will experience a ‘melt down’ where the cooling systems fail and nuclear fuel reaches such a temperature, that it melts away through the reactor or causes damage to reactor walls. This allows the spread of radioactivity, a lethal thing, which can not only pollute the environment but cause cancers and sickness to occur within humans.

Besides from a ‘melt down’ causing the spread of radioactivity, there is also the fear that radioactive wastes from reactors will escape into the environment and contaminate it with radioactivity. Radioactivity is definitely not an issue to be taken lightly. Radiation also had a disastrous effect on many children, with deformations such as “club feet”, “hair lips”, oversized skulls and missing body parts occurring, and there are such cases in India near the nuclear power stations.

deformation due to radiation]
Apart from the serious health problems, the environment also suffered with fish being poisoned and other animals dying. Perhaps the worst thing about radiation is that it doesn’t disappear within a short time. In fact, it is known that radiation can remain within the soil for up to a million years, and still have an effect upon animals and humans.

New Zealand Leggy Lamb

Imagine the risks radiation could pose if it happened to leak out and spread over our community. It would be such a disaster; simply unimaginable to some people. We can’t put ourselves, and yet alone our children at risk to this hideous substance.

In the future, the world might succeed in developing advance and safer nuclear power plants, and may be, we will gain access to the abundant pool of nuclear energy, but till then, what we need to worry about is the energy wastage and emissions. Presently, the solution lies in using combination of all available alternative sources, and somehow cut the consumption of fossil fuels. After all, the energy crisis and climate change are nearer than they appear.

Article contribution by:Amisha Singh Thakur

Environment

Govt Legitimizing and Legalizing Environmental Violations for Business by Amending EIA Rules: Activists  

Published

on

Himachal pradesh EIA Notification 2020 Amendments news

Shimla-While in statements, the politicians in power at the Centre and State Governments have been expressing concerns over environmental issues and ensuring the people that they are committed to protect and preserve the environment, the reality is contrary to it. The most recent evidence is the proposed 2020 draft amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. With these amendments, the process of environmental assessment before granting permission to execute commercial projects, like hydropower projects in Himachal Pradesh, would be reduced to merely a formality.

Environmental activists and people’s organisations from across Himachal have written to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to scrap the 2020 draft amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification proposed by it.

These activists and environmental protection groups are of the opinion that the EIA Notification, first issued in 1994 under the Environment Protection Act 1986, is a critical mechanism that regulates clearances granted to all kinds of development projects and economic activities in the country. It is one of the environmental decision-making processes that makes it mandatory for project developers to not just study the socio-economic, ecological and other impacts of a proposed project but also place them in front of the affected communities for their opinions and objections, thus, ensuring the process of a free, fair and informed consent. However, this notification has been amended and read down several times in the last two decades, in favour of ‘easing the norms’ for business. The latest draft continues to move in the direction of rendering the EIA process a mere formality. 

The submission made by HP groups states,

“In the context of the already vulnerable and sensitive Himalayan region, flouting of various provisions of even the present EIA notification has heavily impacted the local ecology and livelihoods of the people. The new amendments will only legitimize and legalize these violations and this will mean irreparable damage to the Himalayan ecosystem”. 

The key objections raised are around exemptions of a variety of projects from the mandatory  Public Consultation’ process as well as the dismantling of this process itself.

“The reduction of the time prior to public hearing from 30 to 20 days is also highly objectionable. In the given 30 day period itself, the information about Public hearings does not reach all the affected areas which are often spread out widely in case of mountains with some project-affected communities residing in remote and inaccessible terrains. Here accessing information takes a long time and reducing this time to 20 days will completely exclude such people from raising their grievances and suggestions in the public consultation. This is a clear attempt to block their participation in the environmental decision-making process”

said R.S Negi of Him Lok Jagriti Manch, Kinnaur. 

 

“It is shocking that the amendments include allowing post-facto clearance, which means that the project proponent can start work and before they have obtained environmental clearance. If the basic precautionary principle on which the EIA notifications is grounded is itself not followed it can lead to a disastrous situation for the ecology and local people. In this situation who is going to be responsible for the losses? If the project proponent is not in a position to pay for losses, will the MoEF&CC take the responsibility of losses? This provision will encourage project developers to bypass the process of environmental decision making. We absolutely oppose this amendment”,

said Prakash Bhandari of Himdhara Collective.  

The 2020 draft also dilutes the guidelines for monitoring and compliance of Environment conditions.

“Already the system of monitoring is weak, the conditions lose, the pollution control board and companies non-accountable, thus, leading to widespread destruction of local ecology and impacting health, lives, and livelihoods of project-affected communities. In the case of hydropower projects, for instance, the illegal and unmonitored dumping of muck along river beds, in forests and on common lands, has damaged pastures, disrupted the flow of the rivers, and caused massive disasters when floods occur. The proposed changes will give a free reign to those profiting from extractive and polluting projects,” 

according to Kulbhushan Upmanyu of Himalaya Bachao Samiti. 

It is ironic that on one hand, the global COVID crisis has thrown up several studies showing that pandemics like COVID emerge from ecological degradation and forest loss, and on the government is pushing for policy changes which will accentuate the environmental crisis that the country is already reeling under.  

“If the MoEF&CC wants to change the environmental laws, it should carry out countrywide regional consultations”,

added Uma Mahajan of Himachal Van Adhikar Manch.

The country, especially ecologically diverse yet climate-vulnerable regions like the Himalayas need a robust and strong environmental regulatory and governance regime that makes project proponents accountable and keeps the affected communities and ecological concerns at the centre of the EIA and environmental decision-making process. 

Notably, MoEF&CC had called for citizen’s comments before May 11 but this deadline was extended upto  June 30 and now August 11 as environmentalists and concerned groups expressed outrage that calling for public inputs on this critical law amidst the COVID led lockdown was unjustified. The MoEF&CC has in this period received thousands of objections highlighting the new draft as anti-people and environment.

The demand is to scrap these proposed amendments for the sake of the environment. 

Submission Made to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change by Activists and Organizations

Continue Reading

Environment

SC’s Forest Diversion Regulation a Blockade on Forest Rights Act Implementation in Himachal: Himdhara

Published

on

Supreme Court On Forest Diversion in Himachal Pradesh 2

ShimlaHimdhara Collective, a Himachal-based environment research and action group, has released a report on the implications of the regulation imposed by the Supreme Court on forest diversion under the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Himachal, through a series of orders passed last year. This brought to a screeching halt the implementation of Section 3(2) of the FRA which grants powers to gram sabhas and Divisional Forest Officers to divert upto 1 hectare of forest land for 13 types of village welfare activities like roads, schools, community centres, PDS shops etc. 

The court orders were based on the conclusions drawn by a Supreme Court Monitoring Committee, headed by a retired PCCF, V.P Mohan, that the diversions were leading to green felling and deforestation in the state. Initially, a stay was imposed on all green felling in the state (in a matter of forest diversions under FCA 1980 and FRA 2006) on 11th March 2019. This stay was partially relaxed but the Supreme court sought all FRA proposals to be brought before it for further diversion.

The report titled ‘Missing the forest for Trees’, assesses the ground reality behind the conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee based on which these diversions have been restricted.

“We have found that the Supreme court’s orders need to be reviewed because the alarm raised by the V.P Mohan committee with regard to FRA was a false one”,

stated authors of the report which is based on analysis of RTI information as well as field research.

RTI data sought from the Forest department for all cases under section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act 2006 from 2014 to 2019 (up to January 2019), was analysed to reveal that 17237 trees were felled in an area of 887.56 hectares for 1959 activities in 41 of the 45 forest divisions of the state.

Roads, followed by schools and community centres dominate the type of activities carried out. Of the total land diverted 91% is for roads. It was found that almost 64% of these diversions showed ‘nil’ trees felled. The average number of trees felled per hectare is very low (19.52) and it may be induced that most activities have been carried out in areas with open forest or no trees.

Rohru (Shimla), Nachan(Mandi), Kinnaur and Chopal were some of the divisions which had a large number of diversions, again mostly for roads.

Case studies we carried out in Mandi and Kangra district showed the desperate need for amenities like village link roads and schools. In Himachal, there remain about 41% villages that have no road connectivity which affects access to health, education and market centres.

On the other hand, large development activities like four lane highways, hydropower projects and transmission lines, have had a much larger ecological footprint in terms of tree loss in the state compared to the very minute, incomparable diversions under FRA.

The report also finds that as far as green cover is concerned in the period corresponding to the high number of forest diversions under FRA (2015-2019), the forest survey of India’s statistics show a 333 sq.km increase in the forest cover.

Why development rights under FRA important for Himachal?

1.No Land available with revenue departments and panchayats for ‘welfare activities’ thus forest land only option

The report concludes that given the fact that 2/3rd of the geographical area of the state is recorded ‘forest area’ where strict forest laws have restricted non-forest use, the FRA provides relief for communities to access basic welfare facilities, which should be seen as their fundamental right and therefore should not be hindered.

2.Cumbersome, costly and lengthy process under FCA 1980

Before FRA it was the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which governed forest diversion even for small local development activities. This required not only permission from the Central Government (MoEFCC Regional or Delhi Office) but also warranted that user agencies deposit funds (Net Present Value of trees) to carry out Compensatory Afforestation. The whole diversion process under FCA was cumbersome, lengthy and costly, and thus a major hurdle in providing the rural areas, especially remote areas, access to basic welfare development facilities.

 “The section 3(2) of the FRA provides relief for both governmental departments and local communities as it overrides the FCA and puts in place a simple and decentralized process for diversion”states the report.

3.FRA is meant to correct the problems that were posed by strict central forest laws

The Forest Rights Act was passed by the parliament of India in 2006 recognising that across the country there are lakhs of communities dependent on land which is legally categorised as ‘forest land’ and are unable to exercise their basic livelihood and development rights due to extremely strict forest laws. Under this act’s Section 3(1), forest-dependent communities can file claims for their individual and community rights exercised before the cut-off date of 13th December 2005.

“As it is Himachal has been sluggish with FRA implementation and only 136 titles have been issued under section 3(1). But atleast the government was proactive with the implementation of section 3(2). With the Supreme court orders regulating this provision, there seems to be an impression amongst the implementing agencies and officials that there is an over-all blockade on FRA in the state”

added members of the collective.

The report has recommended that the state government and nodal agency for the Act – the Central Ministry of Tribal Affairs, put forth the case in favour of section 3(2) of the FRA strongly in front of the Supreme Court and also move swiftly to ensure implementation of all provisions of this law in Himachal.  

 

Continue Reading

Environment

HP Govt Exempts Use of Plastic Straws Attached with Beverages for 6 Months

Published

on

Plastic straws in himachla pradesh

Shimla: The use of integrated plastic straws attached with tetra pack of beverages are exempted temporarily for a period of six months in Himachal Pradesh, informed a spokesperson of the state government on January 31, 2020.

He informed that the exemption would be a subject to the implementation of Action Plan submitted by M/s Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd., AARC under Extended Producer Responsibility.

During the relaxation period, the manufacturers and producers are to come out with an alternative to plastic straw, which is bio-degradable, he informed. A notification in this regard has been issued recently.

He said that other provisions of the notification issued by Department of Environment, Science and Technology of HP on September 20, 2019, which imposes complete ban on plastic cutlery such as spoons, bowls, katories, stirring sticks, forks, knives, straws made of plastic, would remain banned.

He said that this notification will come into force with immediate effect.

Continue Reading

Trending