September 15, 2012
Akahata editorial (excerpts)
A new energy and environment strategy the Noda government has been discussing in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was finally determined. The strategy proclaims that the government will “devote all possible policy resources to make it possible for all nuclear plants to stop their operations in the 2030s,” but allows the reactivation of currently-suspended reactors as an “important power source” for the time being. The strategy also advocates the continuation of the nuclear fuel-cycle program to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. These policies go against public opinion demanding the immediate withdrawal from nuclear power generation.
Pressed by the overwhelming public call for the departure from nuclear energy shown in a government poll, the “zero-nuclear” policy has emerged in the new strategy. However, just saying sometime “in the 2030s” is unclear when “zero-nuclear” would come into effect. Moreover, the strategy sets the 2030s-time-limit not as a “decision” but as a “goal”, far from guaranteeing the realization of “zero” nuclear plants.
While stipulating the “strict application of the rule limiting operations of the existing reactors to 40 years” and the intention to “not build another plant or add more reactors,” the new strategy allows utilities to “resume (operations of reactors) only if they are confirmed safe by the newly-established nuclear regulatory body.”
It is impractical, in the first place, for dangerous reactors to become “safe” if they obtain “confirmation” of the nuclear regulation authority. The Noda government put up the names of conventional nuclear promoters as members of the regulatory body, which will be inaugurated on September 19, and is intending to decide this member lineup without Diet approval.
The decisions written in the strategy were forced to be delayed from the initial schedule because of concerns arising from the “nuclear power village”, the United States, and business circles. The inability to decide on a clear and unambiguous strategy exposes the fact that the DPJ government cannot break away from its submissive posture to the U.S. and the financial world.
The popular movement demanding that the government make the political decision to immediately withdraw from all nuclear plants to realize a “zero-nuclear” Japan will be increasingly important.
A new energy and environment strategy the Noda government has been discussing in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was finally determined. The strategy proclaims that the government will “devote all possible policy resources to make it possible for all nuclear plants to stop their operations in the 2030s,” but allows the reactivation of currently-suspended reactors as an “important power source” for the time being. The strategy also advocates the continuation of the nuclear fuel-cycle program to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. These policies go against public opinion demanding the immediate withdrawal from nuclear power generation.
Pressed by the overwhelming public call for the departure from nuclear energy shown in a government poll, the “zero-nuclear” policy has emerged in the new strategy. However, just saying sometime “in the 2030s” is unclear when “zero-nuclear” would come into effect. Moreover, the strategy sets the 2030s-time-limit not as a “decision” but as a “goal”, far from guaranteeing the realization of “zero” nuclear plants.
While stipulating the “strict application of the rule limiting operations of the existing reactors to 40 years” and the intention to “not build another plant or add more reactors,” the new strategy allows utilities to “resume (operations of reactors) only if they are confirmed safe by the newly-established nuclear regulatory body.”
It is impractical, in the first place, for dangerous reactors to become “safe” if they obtain “confirmation” of the nuclear regulation authority. The Noda government put up the names of conventional nuclear promoters as members of the regulatory body, which will be inaugurated on September 19, and is intending to decide this member lineup without Diet approval.
The decisions written in the strategy were forced to be delayed from the initial schedule because of concerns arising from the “nuclear power village”, the United States, and business circles. The inability to decide on a clear and unambiguous strategy exposes the fact that the DPJ government cannot break away from its submissive posture to the U.S. and the financial world.
The popular movement demanding that the government make the political decision to immediately withdraw from all nuclear plants to realize a “zero-nuclear” Japan will be increasingly important.
