The Argument against Nuclear Power as Sustainable for Finance
#5To argue that nuclear power is environmentally sustainable is a ridiculous claim. It meets none of the basic requirements of environmental acceptability and instead will do little to combat climate change, will increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation and the further erosion of civil rights, has unknown health consequences and leaves a lethal legacy of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with.
Pete Wilkinson (Saxmundham, 2021-12-21)
#7For the taxonomy to work effectively as a key tool for decarbonising the energy system private investors MUST have confidence that its science base has not been corrupted by politics.
tom burke (London, 2021-12-21)
#9Nuke is not green
Pierre Terras (Auray, 2021-12-21)
#12I'm signing because I support the statement.
Ingmar Schumacher (Luxembourg, 2021-12-21)
#13I am signing as an expert on nuclear waste management for the Swedish environmental movement and director of MKG.
Johan Swahn (Göteborg, 2021-12-21)
#14I do not believe that nuclear power has a part to play in mitgating the risk from climate change or providing sustainable clean energy. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too slow to be of use to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and is not sustainable because of the radioactive waste produced. We still have no idea how to dispose of this in the long term. To create more of it is a very very bad idea! Funding nuclear power is a distraction from focusing on better, cleaner, faster, cheaper renewable technologies we already have for providing sustainable clean energy. Nuclear uses vast amounts of funding and resources that could be spent on genuinely sustainable, clean, decentralised, affordable energy for all. This is not an energy solution for the future, it is a failed energy solution of the past. We will be paying for this mistake for a very long time.
Gabrielle Boyle (London, 2021-12-21)
#15To recommend nuclear power as sustainable is probably the most cynical idea to solve the energy supply of the future. The only permanent and thus "sustainable" effects of nuclear power are cost overruns, damaged industrial areas & landscapes and a contaminated legacy for future generations...
gabi schweiger (freistadt, 2021-12-21)
#20The EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Financing has to be science led. If lobbying and greenwashing undermines this standard, it will not be able to function in urgent climate action.
This letter clearly shows on scientific grounds that nuclear energy has no place in the Taxonomy. The fact that members of the Technical Expert Group of the Taxonomy felt it necessary to start this petition is unprecedented and important.
Ir. Jan Haverkamp (Harlingen, 2021-12-21)
#21Nuclear energy is not green, it is not safe and there is no future.
Todor Todorov (Sofia, 2021-12-21)
#29Je signe car l'énergie nucléaire n'est pas renouvelable
et ne constitue pas une protection climatique à long terme. L'UE ne doit pas soutenir des projets idéologiques influencés par des lobbies.
Il n'y a pas de stockage sûr des déchets.
Ce n'est pas un investissement pour assurer l'avenir des générations futures ou de la planète.
Christine Hasse (Gilhac et Bruzac, 2021-12-21)
#30I agree with the letter outlining the arguments against.
Martha O’Hagan (Dublin, 2021-12-21)
#31The EU taxonomy will not be able to characterise green investments if it includes nuclear energy
Gunnar Olesen (Hjortshøj, 2021-12-21)
#37I'm signing because we must stop producing nuclear waste now.
Oliver Landwehr (Vienna, 2021-12-22)
#38Experience has shown that nuclear accidents can always happen and humanity's expertise to cope with is lagging far behind.No one has the right to decide about risky technologies lasting for many decades on behalf of and without people
Eleni Alevritou (Athens, 2021-12-22)
#39I am ashamed of the nuclear policy of Finland with green and left ministers in the government.
Ulla Klötzer (Espoo Finland, 2021-12-22)
#45On reading the above statement and considering the question on whether nuclear fission energy complies with the ‘do no significant harm criteria’ of the EU Taxonomy I support the science based recommendation of the (TEG) DNSH to the European Commission that nuclear should not be included in the EU Taxonomy of environmentally sustainable activities.
Heather Slevin (Tipperary, 2021-12-22)
#46Nuclear Power is completely nonsense, financially, in regard of time to install and in regard of the danger.
Inge Gauglitz (Aachen, 2021-12-22)
#47I am signing because nuclear is expensive, it is difficult and takes long to be built. Fake climate solution.
Martin Mikeska (Brno, 2021-12-22)
#48There are significant legal implications that the European Commission will face if gas & nuclear are included in the EU Taxonomy, aka the Green Taxonomy. Do the EU Commissioners wish to become entangled in many years of lawsuits, or do the right thing and exclude what is obviously a ploy by big energy to continue the transfer of public funds for dead on arrival technology?
Pia Jensen (Salto, 2021-12-22)
#49Fission reactors take energy that stems from the creation of earth and convert it into heat that is released into the biosphere, thereby adding to climate change. They are part of the problem, not a possible solution. The same applies to fusion reactors.
Lars Leonardsson (Danderyd, 2021-12-22)
#50I am signing, among other reasons, because, as a retired professor of French language and civilisation, I do know how the centralist regime come down from the Ancien Régime AND its "counter-regime" of the French Revolution, has tainted all the fundamental political and administrative policies in the nuclear sector, in the military and the civil sectors – passing by and overruling truly democratic procedures. Without this "primordial bias", which has also been transposed to the European Community and Union via EURATOM, France would have developed toward neither "le tout nucléaire" in energy policy, nor the outright and never-to-be questioned military nuclear doctrine, nor the obstinate leader of nuclear persistance within Europe.
This deeply rooted IDEOLOGICAL preemption in favour of nuclear power has been overriding all energetical facts that might have come in between the pronuclear stance and global evolution in technology and economy. And has been, at least partly, imposed on the rest of the EU, with the help, abiove all, of readily compliant ex-Soviet states, strongly marked by a tradition of undemocratic, over-centralised decision-making.
This influence is crucially pernicious and unacceptable within the establishment of the taxonomy for energy technologies in the European Union.
Thank you for taking these thoughts into serious consideration, and thus prevent a fundamental error from being instilled into the EU taxonomy.
Heinz Stockinger, Salzburg
Heinz Stockinger (5020 Salzburg, 2021-12-22)
#52Nuclear is Not tge sollution for climate change
Zvezdan Kalmar (Subotica, 2021-12-22)
#70The science of human health does not support financial investment in nuclear power. Investment in nuclear forecloses investment in other truly renewable energy technologies.
Jack Cohen-Joppa (Tucson, 2021-12-22)
#72Nuclear energy is not clean and not renewable. The Uranium is a fossil fuel, which gives a lot of pollution, when it is mined. There isn't any real safe solution for the nuclear waste. Furthermore we don't have time left to wait on new technology, especially when there is proven technology like sun and wind power.
M de vries (Wageningen, 2021-12-22)
#76Atomkraft ist kein Klimaretter
Christiane Gombault (48683 Ahaus , 2021-12-22)
#81Nuclear is a dangerous, expensive anachronism
Sally Barley (Diss, 2021-12-22)
#88Develop alternatives like wind and sun energy to be even more effektive. Nuclear power is not clean, nor fossilfree and most expensive of all. The secure must be extremely high all the way. If an accident should happen it can leadto incalculable consequenses.
Inga Palmer (Nynäshamn, 2021-12-22)
#90Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe. It is not a sustainable energy and won't solve any problems.
Sabine Schwalbert (Dortmund, 2021-12-22)
#92We need a FAST expansion of carbon free electricity generation. We need electrification. And we need circular economy - all of it need circular designed RE. Therefore, even more investment needed. No distractions!
Christopher Lüning (Essenheim, 2021-12-23)
#95Nuclear power is not the Solution. We‘ve to find new ways. And to reduce our Energy wasting.
Simone Paffrath (Munich, 2021-12-23)
#961. Against cross-subsidies for military purposes.
2. Against releasing more Krypton in the atmosphere, causing climate change
3. Against spending money on the wrong technology, where new calculations by Stanford researches have shown that with wind, solar, hydro and storage we can achieve a genuine sustainable energy generation for less costs!
4. Against creating more waste for which we have no solution.
5. Against thermophysical energy sources, which create additional heat.
6. Against creating a risk for unforeseeable accidents.
7. Against letting tax payers finance long term storage and other subsidies.
8. Against importing uranium from questionable states.
Marc Nijdam (Berlin, 2021-12-23)
#97Der Planet hat genug für die Bedürfnisse aller, aber nicht für die Gier aller Menschen. Es braucht Mut und Unterstützung, den geldgierigen und machtgierigen bzgl. Atomenergie entgegenzutreten, daher unterstütze ich die Petition.
Friedrich Gregory (Ahaus, 2021-12-23)
#99Nuclear energy is not green, it is not safe and there is no future!
Thomas Hecht (Arzberg, 2021-12-23)
#100Much research must be done on staking energy so renewable energies can become the base production on earth and convert to all usage needed. Nuclear Power is not a solution, nor for security, nor for sustainability, nor for ethic. In fact it's only a boiling pot not such a scientific advance.
joel MAURAS (NIMES, 2021-12-23)
#113To combat climate change we have to use sustainable, clean, existing methods of production - decentralised solar- wind- and tidal energy.
Birgit Jandok (Kiel, 2021-12-23)
#115Mankind definitely is intelligent enough to prevent politics making the same old mistake again!
Sybille Thum-Rüffet (Kiel, 2021-12-23)
#123Nuclear energy is not a sustainable source of energy production.
Liam Byrne (Cork, 2021-12-23)
#125Every investment for nuclear is a lost investment for climate change and will cause a lot of following lost investments to cope with the risks and future heritage of nuclear.
Wolfgang Renneberg (Alfter, 2021-12-23)
#131Nuclear is not sustainable
Rostislav Rozsypal (Brussels, 2021-12-23)
#134I am signing because I fully agree with the petition. Nuclear energy is not sustainable energy and does not respect the " do no significant harm" rule. In times of rapid climate change it is irresponsible to invest in power plants which will stay for a century with dangerous waste for thousand of years. We need consume less, restore nature and produce energy locally with renewables.
Ewa Sufin-Jacquemart (Warszawa, 2021-12-24)
#135Im living next next to one of the last nuclear plant in Germany. Nuclear energy is not sustanable for next Generations...
Fritz Wenzl (Essenbach, 2021-12-24)
#138New atomic power plants and burning our forests to get electricity ist like fighting fire with petrol
Edmund Schultz (Braunschweig, 2021-12-24)
#139Nuclear is expensive, unsafe, unreliable, climate undermining, and proliferation enhancing. it undermines climate policies and especially renewable and climate positive policies
Marc Alexander (Ravels, 2021-12-24)
#149Nuclear power is not a climate solution.
Dave Kraft (Chicago, 2021-12-24)
#157Further technology development in nuclear fission or fusion should be discontinued today. These devices are not only radiating all environments on earth to the extreme detriment of all Biota, but it is leaving a legacy that means immeasurable suffering for the animals, plants and people that will follow us on earth. We are dong this because our "Defense" departments demand it. We are paying for the death machine that will kill our progeny
Jan Boudart (Chicago, 2021-12-25)
#159Nuclear power creates nuclear waste and potential nuclear leaks. there is nothing good about it. And those leaks sicken the people who live in the are of the leak and can kill them
Lorna Paisley (Lake Balboa, 2021-12-25)
#160This is about our future as well as the future of all our children and grandchildren. It would be totally stupid to continue with such a dangerous and expensive form of energy production when there are so many better alternatives.
Wiltrud Daniels (Kvissleby, 2021-12-25)
#170Nuclear and gas are everything but sustainable and a real threat to our planet and people - only lobbyist and strongly misleaded or/ and paid people can say anything else. Stop this craziness!
Patrick Weisser (Freiburg, 2021-12-26)
#172...including nuckear would put the taxonomy incredible, violate it's own principles, and put the whole green deal in risk!
Matthias Weyland (Kiel , 2021-12-26)
#178Atomic power is too slow to provide an adequate solution to anthropogenic climate change
gary sachs (brattleboro, 2021-12-27)
#184NGO "Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire" : https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/
and "Collectif Arrêt Du Nucléaire" : http://collectif-adn.fr/
Activist against "Cigeo", the deep geological disposal project in Bure, France : http://burestop.free.fr/spip/
Angélique Huguin (Vadelaincourt, 2021-12-27)
#188I did not actively campaign AGAINST nuclear before BUT that doesn't make nuclear a SUSTAINABLE investment. Far from it. It impacts water quality (temperature), pollution prevention and control (pollution during uranium mining), cicular economy (nuclear waste) and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems (uranium mining and areas contaminated after nuclear accidents)
Jakub Gogolewski (Frankfurt (Oder), 2021-12-28)
#189Don't nuke the climate!
Paul Polfer (Oberanven, 2021-12-28)
#199Nuclear power is dangerous for peoples/animals and natures health and causes death!! It´s a threat against the whole world!
IdaTherese Staf (kåge, 2021-12-28)