Unmasking False Solutions: "Climate Action vs. Greenwashing" panel unveils costs and dangers of nuclear and LNG proposals
In the face of a rapidly heating and destabilizing climate, the critical fight for a just and healthy future for present and future generations is often beset by misguided or misinformed “solutions” that can threaten more harm than good. On September 20, we were honored to co-host a critical panel that tackled the need to distinguish real climate action from two recent proposals concerning liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear power.
In a series of presentations moderated by David Mulinix, co-founder of Green Peace Hawaiʻi and 350 Hawaiʻi, guest speakers detailed how these proposals are dangerous diversions from our clean energy goals and may create new barriers to a just, carbon-negative future:
Achieving Healthier Oceans and People: Nuclear Waste and Its Impacts
Dr. Robert Richmond, a researcher who has studied the impacts of U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, dismantled the myth of "clean" nuclear energy. He highlighted the transgenerational and transboundary nature of nuclear contamination, citing the ongoing crisis at Fukushima.
Key Takeaways:
Ocean Health is Human Health: Radioactive waste contaminates ecosystems and food chains for decades, threatening food security, cultural practices, and public health.
The "Micro-Reactor" Deception: The industry's use of the term intentionally omits "nuclear," but the danger lies in the fuel and waste, which remain significant unknowns.
No Accountability: The Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of nuclear operators, meaning much of the financial cost of catastrophic disasters would be borne by the impacted community.
A "Bridge” or a Pier? LNG and Hawaiʻi’s Energy Future
Wayne Tanaka of the Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi then provided an in-depth analysis of the recent state proposal to adopt LNG as a "bridge fuel." As he described, this proposal only risks perpetuating our dependency on imported fossil fuels, with potentially significant costs to our environmental and public health, climate mitigation goals, and ratepayers’ pocketbooks.
Key Takeaways:
Unlikely Savings: The projected $1.4 billion up-front infrastructure cost is likely to balloon (see: the Honolulu rail), with potentially significant maintenance and repair costs, making projected cost savings highly dubious at best.
Unreliable Technology: Floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) such as that proposed for Hawaiʻi are high-maintenance and prone to lengthy shutdowns, whether from climate-related events, tsunamis, fires, or human error.
Climate Impacts: With methane having 80 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide, and with its propensity to leak at every point along the production-supply-consumption chain, Hawaiʻi could be paving the way for the widespread adoption of one of the most harmful fossil fuels throughout the Pacific.
Foreign Control: Relying on overseas corporations for our energy supply only perpetuates the challenges we have faced with corporate entities whose profit motives conflict with the public good.
The path forward is clear: a decisive pivot to proven, clean energy sources like solar, combined with investments in storage research and development and grid modernization.
Climate Action:
Hawaiʻi State Representative Ikaika Hussey rounded out the panel with a reflection on true climate action; the importance of acknowledging the political realities that may be driving false climate climate solutions, and accelerating our climate crisis; and potential policies and state investments that could instead create an equitable, timely, and economically viable transition for Hawaiʻi.
You can watch the panel, including the presentations and a follow up Q&A, here.