 |
COP6 COP6.5 was held from 16th to 27th of July 2001 in Bonn [Germany] there was a victorious outcome regarding nuclear |
 |
|
COP6 COP6.5 was held from 16th to 27th of July 2001 in Bonn [Germany] there was a victorious outcome regarding nuclear |
|
Last updated: September 12, 2001
source = Greenpeace International; ben.pearson@dialb.greenpeace.org
The climateconference in Bonn (COP6bis) has agreed language that means that nuclear is out of the Kyoto Protocol, ruled out of both Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The text is even better than what was in the text at The Hague (COP6, November 2000) , as it includes JI and covers unilateral CDM projects.
The language is in two parts, one in JI, one in the CDM. It reads:
The Conference of Parties agrees:
Article 6 (JI)
To recognise that Parties included in Annex I [ie industrialised countries with emissions reduction targets] are to refrain from using emission reduction units [carbon credits] generated from nuclear facilities to meet their commitments under Article 3.1
Article 12 (CDM)
To recognise that Parties included in Annex I are to refrain from using certified emission reductions [carbon credits] generated from nuclear facilities to meet their commitments under Article 3.1"
In normal language this means that the Parties have agreed that nuclear power plants won't be used to generate carbon credits. Simply stated, if the credits can't be used by Annex I countries, then there is no point generating them. They have zero value. And if their value is zero they cannot be used to reduce the cost of a new reactor. There is a small Q&A at the bottom of this article which provides more information on this.
Why is the language framed this way? The language is indirect because Japan and India didn't want to include direct exclusion language that could be seen as a criticism of their domestic programs. So text was drafted that achieves the result wanted (nukes out) without actually saying it explicitly.
Sorry if this is a bit byzantine and difficult to understand, but be assurred the bottom line is that the Kyoto Protocol will not subsidise nuclear power, and the industry's attempts to portray themselves as a solution to climate change have suffered a serious setback.
Congratulations and thanks to all of you who have made this victory possible over the past couple of years!!!!
What does this decision mean?
This decision is a rejection of the nuclear industry's argument that it is a solution to climate change. The 186 countries who have negotiated the rules of the Kyoto Protocol have made it clear that nuclear power is not part of the solution by refusing to allow nuclear projects to be subsidised by the Kyoto Protocol's "mechanisms" - the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). The industry lost its attempt to create a new subsidy for reactor construction in developing countries and eastern europe.
How would the CDM and JI have benefited the nuclear industry?
The high capital cost of reactors is one of the biggest barriers to new construction, and it was hoped that carbon credits would bring the price down. For example, a 700 MW coal fired power station emits about 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. If a nuclear reactor was built instead, it could be claimed that it offsets this amount of CO2. Estimates of the value of CO2 per tonne vary but nuclear projects would likely have realised a large amount of credits (due to their large size) which could have been worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars. An agreement between the western supplier of the reactor and the developing country in which it was being built to subtract the value of the carbon credits from the capital cost of the reactor could have greatly improve the economics of new construction. There would have also been a political benefit in being able to claim nuclear projects as "clean development" projects that were being used to fight climate change.
How will the text prevent this?
The current text states that Annex I countries won't use credits from a nuclear project to help them meet their emission reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol. This means these credits will have zero value and thus cannot be used to reduce the cost of new reactor construction.
What is article 3.1?
Article 3.1 of the Kyoto Protocol commits industrialised (Annex I) countries to meet the emission reduction target set for them in the Kyoto Protocol. The language means that they cannot use nuclear credits to do this.
What about Parties not included in Annex I? Can they use nuclear credits?
Parties not included in Annex I do not have a reduction commitment and as a result have no need for carbon credits. Credits only have value if they can be sold to Annex I countries for use in meeting their emission reduction target. The language says that Annex I countries cannot do this.
For an explanation of the alleged nuclear 'loophole' in the Bonn Agreement, click here.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |