From: Donella H. Meadows >
Subject: Re: Kiev Memorandum

MEMORANDUM
Ten Lessons from Chernobyl

(folyt.)


6. The 'Aid' from the West, particularly nuclear lending, needs to be
redirected.
The European Union/G7|s policy of "safety upgrade aid for early phase-out"
has failed. Instead this money is extending the life of reactors.  Loans
from international banks, government credit agencies and financial
institutions support the western nuclear incursion into the East instead
of advancing safer and cheaper options. To date, over two-thirds of
European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) fundinghas been for energy supply-side options, with
less than 3% directed to end-use efficiency projects and virtually nothing
towards renewables. We call for a fundamental reform of both the Bank and
bilateral aid agency lending policies, areform based on least-cost
options, including energy pricing that reflects the external costs of
nuclear energy alongwith decommissioning.

7. Alternatives in Eastern Europe are available.
The technical and economic potential for energy efficiency throughout the
region is enormous. Even if only a smallproportion were realized, we could
close all dangerous reactors in the region without major economic
disruption. Forexample, in the Ukraine, realistic savings from energy
efficiency gains would be greater than the output of the Chernobyl
complex. A very rapid closure of all reactors might require the
introduction of efficient gas turbines as the efficiency of all resources
used is built up. The longer-term potential for renewable energy based on
biomass, hydro,solar heating, solar electric, and wind power is very large
and often cost-effective today. It should be tapped with an aggressive
programme of research, development and incentives; this would also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.What is missing is the political will by Eastern
European and OECD governments to invest in the most cost-effective
technologies and to redirect utility incentives towards their
implementation.

8. The obstacles to reform are primarily political and institutional, not
technical and economic.
The nuclear energy lobby includes a formidable national and international
network of banks, research institutes,regulatory authorities and even
governments. The intricate tie between the military use of nuclear weapons
and the civilian nuclear industry is a major factor. The shifting of
revenues and control away from these powerful groups, due to restructuring
the energy sector, often leads them to oppose the institutional changes
needed for a rational energy policy. Yet the reform would be supported by
adopting a =E6least-cost=C6 path first and by making the cheapest option the
most profitable choice for utilities rather than today=C6s perverse system
of rewarding utilities for selling more energy.

9. Public engagement is crucial.
An informed and active citizen campaign in the West helped to stop the
nuclear industry. A similar movement, adapted to local and national
conditions, must now gain force in the East, although the circumstances
are far moredifficult. Unless nonprofit NGOs become more effective, the
change in the formulation of energy policy needed tosecure a sustainable
energy future is unlikely. The requirement of all civil societies for
democratic control of energypolicymaking includes free access to
information, transparency in decision-making and accountability, public
participation and perseverance.

10. Everybody's effort matters.
Individuals and groups who oppose nuclear power and foster sustainable
energy options need to be able to count oninternational solidarity and
cooperation.

Participants at the Kiev Conference, representing some 120
organizations from 30 countries, agree to strengthen transnational
cooperation in their joint search for a sustainable energy future and
demand:
  the EIB and Euratom should not be permitted to fund nuclear plants outside
the European Union;
  the French and German governments through their export guarantee
organizations - Coface and Hermes -should not fund the completion of the
Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia;
  the IAEA should have all nuclear promotional responsibilities converted
to expertise on decommissioning, and a new UN agency promoting energy
efficiency and renewables be established;
  the Vienna Convention on nuclear liability should require unlimited
liability for nuclear accidents, in line with all other industries;
  exporters of nuclear facilities should be required to ensure the same
safety standards abroad which are required at home;
  both international financing and national energy policy should favor and
reward the energy options with lowest social cost;
  Slovenian citizens should  have a binding referendum on the early closure
of the Krsko nuclear plant;
  Alexander Nikitin, currently imprisoned by the Russian state for
compiling open-source information onnuclear health and safety problems,
should be immediately released; and
  Chernobyl victims should get sufficient compensation and relief payments.
These lessons, taken together, lead us to one inescapable conclusion: No
more Chernobyls, anywhere, ever. Let us change track. Let us end
dependence on nuclear power in the Eastand speed up the shift already
underway in the West. Let us start the widespread implemention of
sustainable energy systems which treat the earth more kindly and cost
less. Let us honor the victims of Chernobyl bymaking another catastrophe
impossible.

1. Az orosz, belorusz es ukran teruleteken az egeszsegugyi helyzet nem csak a
   baleset miatt romlott. A Szu osszeomlasa miatt egyreszt visszaesett a
varosi
   emberek eletszinvonala (sokkal jobban, mint nalunk), a glasznoszty miatt
   pedig egyre tobb adat van a korabban is kozepkori viszonyok kozott elo
   falusi emberek egeszsegugyi helyzeterol (korabban oket szimplan kihagytak
   a statisztikakbol, hogy le tudjak hagyni a rothado imprlzmust).

2. Az egysegnyi GDP-re vetitett ukran energiafelhasznalas a nyugat-europainak
   hetszerese. Posfai Janos altal felvetett hiba: 1. a keleti es a nyugati
GDP
   nem osszehasonlithato; 2. az energiafelhasznalas szamottevo (es fix) resze
   nem a GDP megtermelesere megy el, ezt figyelembe veve szerintem az ukran
   gazdasag energiahatekonysaga jobb, mint a nyugat-europai (i.e. az ukran
pa-
   raszt kenyermeghajtasu kapaval gondozza a krumplit, kenyermeghajtasu
kasza-
   val vagja a szenat stb).

3. "inherently unsafe" -- ez egy igazi, komoly, meggyozo erv. Valamint a
kony-
   hakes is inherently unsafe, meg a magasvasut, meg az olajfinomito, stb.
   Vagy az amerikai eletmod tartozekait per def kihagyjuk az inherently
unsafe
   listabol?

Mindegy, meguntam. Suketek parbeszede.

IAEA Says 438 Nuke Plants Operating Worldwide

VIENNA (Reuter) - Five new nuclear power plants came into operation
since 1994 and a mothballed plant in Armenia came back on stream,
bringing the total number around the world to 438, the United Nations
nuclear agency said Thursday. 

Four new reactors with a combined capacity of 3,290 megawatts of
electricity were connected last year to power grids in India, South
Korea, Britain and Ukraine, the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) said. 

In addition, Romania opened a Canadian-built reactor at Cernavoda on
the Danube 170 km (105 miles) east of Bucharest in April, the IAEA
told Reuters. 

``It is not yet in commercial use, but it is up and running,'' Kyd
said. Cernavoda is the first Western-designed nuclear power plant in Eastern
Europe. Romania's power authority Renel said Cernavoda would begin
generating commercial quantities of electricity in the fourth quarter
of 1996. 

An Armenian plant at Metsamor was reconnected to the local electricity
grid in 1995 after being shut down following a devastating earthquake
in 1988, Kyd said. Two nuclear reactors were shut down in 1995, one 
in Canada and one in Germany. 

``That would bring us up to 31 countries with operating reactors,'' he
said. The IAEA said 38 nuclear power plants were currently under
construction in 14 countries, including five in Ukraine, five in South
Korea, four in Russia and four in India. The United States runs the 
greatest number of nuclear power plantswith 109 in operation. 
France comes second with 56, followed by Japan
with 51.  Ukraine, site of the world's worst nuclear accident at 
the Chernobyl plant in 1986, has 16 reactors in operation. 

The IAEA said 17 countries relied on nuclear power plants to supply at
least a quarter of their electricity needs, but in some areas of
Europe it was significantly higher. Nuclear power's share of electricity 
production was highest in Lithuania at 85.59 percent, followed by 
76.14 percent in France and 55.52 percent in Belgium. The share dropped 
to slightly below half in Sweden at 46.61 percent,
46.43 percent in Bulgaria, 44.14 percent in Slovakia and 42.30 percent
in Hungary. 

The IAEA said the total nuclear power generation around the globe rose
to 2,227.94 terawatt-hours, more than the world's total electricity
generation from all sources in 1958. Overall, nuclear power plants 
provided about 17 percent of the world's electricity production in 1995.

TOO MANY SHRIVELED SCROOGES IN THE NATIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

        The Washington budget battle, which shut down the government twice
and
kept parts of it limping along without proper funding for seven months, has
finally been resolved.  The fight was about balancing the budget sometime off
in the future, or so they said.

        But the year-2002 numbers they were arguing about were sheer guesses.
The loudest "budget cutters" doled out to the Pentagon billions of dollars
that
hadn't even been requested.  They didn't go after waste in the whole budget,
only in the programs they don't like.  They didn't sort the budget into
operating expenses and capital expenses, the way any prudent business or
household does.  While crying "shortage," they pushed for tax cuts,
especially
for corporations and high-income individuals.

        Budget-balancing could not have been their motive.  The fight was
over
something far more profound, as is always the case with budget battles.
Ultimately what budgets are, in black and white, in numbers with dollar signs
next to them, right out there where everyone can see, are our real values,
our
worldviews, our philosophies of life.  With budgets we put our money not
where
our mouths are, but where our hearts are.

        So as far as I can understand the hearts of the farthest right
Republicans in Congress, they beat for wealth defined in its strictest sense:
money, Gross Domestic Product, stock market price, corporate bottom line.  To
them it's a crime to drain off that wealth to any purpose that doesn't serve
the accumulation of more wealth.  Pentagon spending is OK; it enriches
defense
contractors.  Corporate subsidies of all sorts are fine.  Payments to people,
from welfare to Medicare, compute as a loss.

        Regulations that keep trees standing when money could be made by
cutting them down, or that protect wetlands that could be "developed," or
that
decrease business profits for purposes like keeping workers safe or cleaning
up
pollution -- well those regulations are abominations.  They take good dollar
value and turn it into nothing.  They pour the hard-earned cash of honest
citizens right down rat holes (or snail darter holes or spotted owl holes).

        Another view, represented by some Democrats, including Bill Clinton
sometimes, sees value in money wealth, sure, but also in some things that
don't
have a market price -- such as people, communities, nature, peace.

        Understandably, logically, if you see through the worldview of the
rightmost, you would want to slash teacher training, national service
programs
for young people, student loans, community police, Head Start, the United
Nations, worker protection and environmental protection.  You would gleefully
attach to the budget a bunch of "riders" aimed at turning environmental
resources into cash.  Log the Tongass National Forest.  Stop the EPA from
protecting wetlands.  Undo the California Desert Protection Act.  Don't allow
the government to list any more endangered species.

        If you were a president greatly beholden to suppliers of cash, but
bombarded by voters who care about more than money (and Clinton himself, I
think, cares about more than money),  you might screw up the courage to veto
that budget.  Thus the shutdowns, the heated rhetoric, and the long process
of
haggling.

        When one side takes a narrow, absolute stand -- wealth is money,
period
-- and the other side is broad and mushy -- well, yes, wealth is money, but
wealth is other things that don't necessarily have prices -- compromise can
move only one direction, toward the absolute.  The open question in the
budget
negotiation was how much non-monetary wealth would be lost.  The answer
turned
out to be: not as much as could have been, but still way too much.

        Most of the president's favorite social programs, including
Americorps
and education, were preserved.

        Whole-scale logging of the Tongass was canceled, but the "salvage
rider" that waives all environmental rules for logging in the national
forests
will continue through September.  (Watch for it to be extended, stuck onto
some
other bill that the president wants and needs to sign.)

        Funding for the Mojave National Preserve has been restored.

        The EPA is still allowed to protect wetlands.

 The moratorium on endangered species listing has been lifted, though there
is
still far too little money to protect those species.  (The total annual
budget
for the Endangered Species Act is less than the cost of building one mile of
federal highway.)  And one species has been shafted.  The Mt. Graham squirrel
lives on a patch of about 100 acres of national forest on the tip of a high
mountain jutting out of the Arizona desert.  Somehow, 3000 miles away in
Washington, it was decided that the Endangered Species Act will be waived so
the University of Arizona can build an observatory on just those 100 acres on
just that mountain.
        Where does that university get such power?  Or maybe a better
question
is: how could one small squirrel ever hope to have power at a bargaining
table
in Washington?
        Or no, here's the question I really want to ask.  Why do we hand so
much power to the Scroogish worldview that measures wealth only in money? 
How
have we managed to arrange things so that a few prideful men, paid by us,
meet
in luxurious rooms, paid for by us, and fight for their own pitifully cramped
values, using our values, our national wealth, our children, our communities,
our forests, and the creatures of nature as bargaining chips?
 (Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Csak egy allitashoz szolnek hozza: hogy Ukrajna hetszer annyi energiat 
hasznal GDP-egysegenkent, mint a nyugati orszagok. Szerintem ez 
_elsosorban_ nem azert van, mert pazarloak, hanem mert olyan alacsony a 
GDP. Es bizonyos fix fogyasztasok, peldaul a lakossage', igy nagyobb 
aranyt kepvuselnek. Velemeny?

Ed 

/-----------------------------------------------------\
| Technical University of Budapest, Hungary           |
| mail: (also ) |
| http://goliat.eik.bme.hu/~kedvard/                  |
\-----------------------------------------------------/