Anti-nuclear energy protesters stage a rally near the building where the Christian Democratic Union, the Christian Social Union and the Free Democrats party were holding coalition talks in Berlin Oct. 17, 2009. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)

Revived German movement protests nuclear energy

Share on Facebook StumbleUpon Add to Reddit Print Version Email Article

Chancellor Angela Merkel's support for nuclear power has sparked demonstrations.

By Cameron Abadi — GlobalPost

Published: November 28, 2009 09:20 ET

BERLIN, Germany — When Germany’s newly elected conservative coalition recently declared that it would rescind the country’s phase-out of nuclear power, it served as the final death knell to the era of consensus presided over by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s previous “Grand Coalition.”

But the announcement was not a surprise: Energy policy was one of the few issues about which Merkel and her Christian Democratic party (CDU) spoke candidly during the campaign.

But, the announcement resonated deeply across Germany and has served as a rallying cry for activists who lay dormant during the past few years in search of a cause. With hundreds of independent anti-nuclear activist groups promising frequent and disruptive protests in the coming weeks — and already providing a preview by way of hundreds of hecklers dispatched to the new coalition negotiations — the country is bracing for a heated confrontation.

“The 17 nuclear plants in Germany are everything but safe,” said Jochen Stay from the anti-nuclear group “Ausgestrahlt,” one of the organizers of the protests at the coalition negotiations. “Whoever thinks about extending their use puts the lives and health of millions of people in jeopardy.”

Some conservatives are already worried that things may get out of hand. An executive of one of the country’s largest energy utilities has written a letter to the heads of the opposition Green Party in order to suggest that they meet in order to clear the air. “Certainly one of the things we should talk about is how we can avoid conditions in the country that resemble a civil war,” wrote Juergen Grossmann, head of RWE, according to the newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

The activists have a long and rich tradition to draw on. West Germany’s anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s and 1980s is generally upheld as the country’s most effective and sustained example of civic engagement. The federal government in Bonn hadn’t been much interested in the dangers of nuclear energy until hundreds of thousands representing a diverse cross-section of the country came out in mostly rural areas to protest against — and, at times, physically prevent — the opening of local reactors and the depositing of nuclear waste.

Eventually, the demonstrators formed the basis of a new party, the Greens, that would, in a late 1990s coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD), proscribe by law the phase-out the country’s remaining 17 nuclear power plants by 2020. This is the law that Merkel now seeks to amend.

Today’s activists, like those from 30 years ago, have declared themselves independent of all the established parties, including the Greens. But, in their aims, style and composition, these activists are less a new social movement than a nostalgia-tinged continuation of an old one, complete with a logo borrowed from the previous era: a red, smiling sun set against a white background together with the words “No, thank you!” It’s a fitting instance of recycling, since in some sense, the old anti-nuclear movement never went away: Periodic clashes between protesters and police near the city of Gorleben, where Germany has disposed of nuclear material, have gone on uninterrupted since the 1970s.

Comments:

3 Comments.

Posted by david wayne osedach on November 28, 2009 10:10 ET

Merkel is right. Without nuclear power the German economy will fall behind Great Britain and France.

Posted by Diet Simon on November 29, 2009 03:22 ET

Your November 28 story “Revived German movement protests nuclear energy” (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/global-green/091126/germany-nuclear-e...) is grossly inaccurate and trivialising.

Firstly, it is ludicrous to call Gorleben a “city”. It is a village of 840 people at last count. That alone disqualifies the reporter. He hasn’t picked up the phone or googled for basic facts.

He contradicts himself with protests having “gone on uninterrupted since the 1970s” and “these activists are less a new social movement than a nostalgia-tinged continuation of an old one”. There’s nothing nostaligic about keeping up a fight for 32 years.

And what bulldust in “It’s a fitting instance of recycling, since in some sense, the old anti-nuclear movement never went away.”

Middle-aged farmers on the tractors? It's long been two generations including the young family men on the tractors, the backbone of the Gorleben militancy.

Bad, bad, bad reporting....

Diet Simon

Posted by Rod Adams on November 29, 2009 04:05 ET

Energy source discussions are not just about fond recollections of previous rallies that seemed to make governments pay attention to formerly powerless people. They are also discussions that have huge economic consequences that produces winners and losers. Some participants get distracted by the action and community organizing of the rallies, but many smile and pocket their winnings.

When it comes to a choice between coal and uranium, how do you think coal mine owners feel? How do you think that the railroads and shipping companies whose major business is moving coal feel? When it comes to a choice between Russian natural gas and uranium, how do you think that former chancellors who currently work for Gazprom - like Gerhard Schroder, the man who negotiated the nuclear phase out in the first place - will act? What do you think that pipeline builders will say or those who manufacture subsidized windmills and solar panels?

Who do you think has the means, motive and opportunity to help enable the organized opposition to nuclear energy and to ensure that the rallies get attendance and attention? Take a hard look at commercial media outlets and count just how many ads come from enormous corporations that have a stake in energy sources that compete - not very well - with uranium fission. Think about how fission power plants can operate for 18-24 months without new fuel, how they do not emit any carbon dioxide, SOX, NOX, fly ash, or mercury and how they have proven their ability to operate at full power reliably for as long as 500 days in a row. Count the deaths at Chernobyl and compare them to the 3500+ that die each year in coal mines. Think about how a natural gas well accident in China that killed more than 250 people and put more than 9,000 in the hospital can be completely ignored and forgotten, despite the fact that it happened just 6 years ago (December 23, 2003 - look it up) while Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are remembered by all even though both happened more than 20 years ago.

I am never surprised to see that the opposition to nuclear energy can gather hundreds of groups that can provide tens of thousands of protesters. What I am surprised about is the fact that the protesters THINK that they are working in opposition to the establishment when they are, in fact, doing exactly what the world's largest and wealthiest industry wants them to do.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights