Today the whole world remembers the tragedy at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant,
one of the largest environmental disasters in the history of mankind. Belarus isthe country most affected by Chernobyl, and generations to come will have to dealwith the consequences. Despite Chernobyl, the Lukashenko regime, influenced bythe Russian lobby, built a new nuclear power plant in Belarus. The Astravetsnuclear power plant became a problem even before construction was completed, withnumerous budget issues and repeated construction accidents. Just look at thestory of how the reactor housing was dropped during installation.Critics of the Belarusian NPP often dwell on regime problems, omitting the factthat nuclear power was an extremely expensive concept for Belarus even before itwas built. It is enough to remember the amount of land that is not suitable todaynot only for economic purposes, but for living in general. It would seem to beclear to every Belarusian that the slightest chance of a catastrophe at a nuclearpower plant can lead to enormous consequences for the region around the plant.But decisions in the country are rarely made by the people. The Belarusiannuclear power plant is not an economic, but first of all a political project ofthe dictatorship. Lukashenko has been building megaprojects for years, contraryto any arguments. Today, Astravets NPP is a monument to the dictatorship, just asin Spain, dozens of dams remind the regime of fascist Franco, who sunk manycommunities in a large-scale project to build a new energy network. This is whyproblems with reactors or questions of the economic viability of nuclear powerplants recede into the background.Belarusian anarchists have consistently opposed nuclear power throughout thecountry's existence. Starting with the protests in the 1990s and the successfulextension of the moratorium on nuclear power, and ending with the defeat in thestruggle against the construction of the plant in Astravets. For anarchists, thenuclear power plant brings new problems to society, solutions to which are rarelyfound.Let's start with the simplest: any modern nuclear power plant produces toxicwaste that will need to be isolated from the environment for many decades. Ourdecisions today about so-called cheap energy will be handed down to generationsafter us, just as the world is rushing toward environmental disaster today at theexpense of decisions often made before we were born. We should not count onbureaucrats from the Lukashenko regime or the new opposition to handle this issueresponsibly: burial problems and negligence often appear even in countries with awell-developed nuclear power industry. Any carelessness in transportation orstorage can lead to disastrous consequences for the ecology of the region.Both the waste and the nuclear power plant itself pose a safety hazard, amongother things. The war in Ukraine and the numerous shelling of the ZaporizhzhyaNPP is a vivid example of this. Destruction or damage to the nuclear power plantin the case of an armed conflict may end up in a new Chernobyl, withunpredictable consequences for the entire territory of modern Belarus. Even ifthe nuclear power plant passes into the hands of the liberal regime, theprobability of sabotage and attacks on the plant does not diminish, givenRussia's willingness to use all possible mechanisms to undermine the politicalstability of "hostile" to Moscow imperialism countries.Some supporters of the Belarusian nuclear power plant, and nuclear power as awhole, believe that it is capable of freeing part of our planet's population fromresource dependence on authoritarian regimes. It is clear that in the case ofBelarus, the situation is much simpler - Rosatom built the plant, but the loanswill have to be paid to the Russian regime for many years. It's no secret whereBelarus buys and will continue to buy uranium for its nuclear power plants. TheRussian government, represented by Rosatom, controls UraniumOne Corporation, thethird largest producer of uranium, thus being engaged not only in Russia but alsoin other regions of the planet. Besides, according to Euroatom, in 2020 the EUcountries supplied 20.2% and 19.1% of uranium from Russia and Kazakhstanrespectively. So the so called peaceful atom is not an alternative for Europe'soil and gas dependence on the Kremlin.What do environmentalists offer as an alternative to nuclear power plants? Firstof all, the optimization of energy consumption, which can significantly reducethe need for energy in the production and consumption environment. Using regionalenvironmental solutions to further decentralize political power in the country:energy is one of the levers of political influence that can be used by the newdictators and authoritarian leaders. The transition from fossil energy sources toecological solutions will certainly be a challenge for the whole region, but webelieve that the Belarusian society should not be afraid of challenges.Shutdown of NPP is not only an economic but also a political decision whichrequires not only the will of 1-2 politicians but also the will of all people.Abandonment of nuclear power must of course take place in parallel to the refusalto pay the debt for the construction of the plant. Belarusians should not pay forthe project lobbied by Moscow.https://pramen.io/en/2023/04/why-belarus-does-not-need-nuclear-power/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten