Of two of the problems Spain faced in the 1980s, one, that of NATO, was resolved for the better, paving our access to the European Union, and the other, that of nuclear energy, was bad. The two issues have always been related, to the point that it is forgotten that next to the "no to NATO" was the sign of the anti-nuclear movement.
If all the effort that has been put into abhorring nuclear energy over the last four decades had been spent on developing technologies to make it safer, it would have been many years since power plants such as third-generation ones that reuse fuel almost infinitely would have been manufactured. , solving the
waste problem, or new shutdown systems to shield it against accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.
The ideological bias is evident in Yolanda Díaz's reaction to the Brussels proposal to consider nuclear as a green energy, useful for the decarbonisation that we are pursuing. "Europe still has the opportunity to reconsider this decision to avoid straying away from scientific evidence and social demand," Díaz wrote.
Scientific evidence has long considered nuclear energy as an ecological energy, which does not emit CO2 and which can be a cheap alternative to sustain the decarbonisation process. There are several scientific documents, almost from the same organisms that have reported on climate change, about it. What happens is that Diaz likes some reports and others do not.
To the vice presidents Nadia Calviño and Teresa Ribera they don't like the Brussels proposal either. They said so in a letter they sent in July. They, however, did not invent non-existent evidence and used the high-risk argument. This is so, but it is also true that no Western European country - including hypernuclearized France and skeptical Spain - has had a major accident.
What is at stake is a battle for the capture of the funds of the EU 'Green Deal' between France and Germany. The dispute threatens to be resolved with a new exercise of nominalism, which is what the taxonomies and reclassifications hide (something similar happens in the labor reform), considering nuclear essential for the decarbonization of Europe, as defended by France, and natural gas , as offered to Germany. The difference is that while science does support that nuclear is green, natural gas may be the most efficient of fossil fuels, but it still emits CO2.
Between the proletarianization that seems to induce the costs of the ecological transition or accept the nuclear risk and abandon ideological atavisms, what will the European left end up doing? Which of your fears will triumph: that of climate change that destroys the entire planet or that of the nuclear accident? [email protected]