Author: Kiersten Sundell

The words “I can’t breathe” shook the world nearly two years ago, and have since become a symbol for racial justice movements everywhere. Environmental justice efforts hold these words closely as well — the World Health Organization has found that one in eight deaths can be attributed to urban air pollution. Based on what we know about environmental injustice, it’s a safe assumption that the majority of these deaths are people of color, those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or both.

What is environmental justice, and how does it relate to nuclear energy?

Environmental racism is the concept that low-income and high-minority areas tend to be disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards like air pollution, which, in the U.S., is linked to racist redlining practices that residentially segregated the nation following the Great Depression.

80% of anthropogenic emissions in the United States come from the energy sector alone, giving it a significant role in the justice discussion. In addition to its current impact, U.S. energy production carries a history of systemic environmental injustices towards Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC), which over time has resulted in the loss and pollution of ancestral land, increased rates of cancer and respiratory diseases, and exceptionally high death rates.

Nuclear energy in particular has faced a complicated environmental justice narrative throughout history, beginning with the displacement of Southwestern indigenous populations in the mid-20th century in order to access uranium deposits, and ending with the contamination of native lands. While no energy source comes without its flaws, nuclear power is arguably one of the best current solutions for resolving health and environmental inequalities in marginalized communities, as it releases virtually zero carbon emissions, takes up less land than any other energy source, and has actually saved millions of lives.

Which industries are responsible for environmental injustice?

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), 92% of U.S. carbon emissions are generated by the fossil fuel industry alone. Aside from carbon, other emissions that arise from this industry include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, and uranium.

Emissions released from fossil fuel combustion are also largely present in the transportation sector. Areas with a large concentration of vehicular traffic or industry that experience significant noise pollution, odor, or emissions are known as “fence-line” communities. It was found in 2020 that Black people are 75% more likely than whites to live in these areas, and are extremely vulnerable to health impacts such as asthma, nausea, headaches and respiratory illnesses. While electric vehicles will help reduce this localized air pollution, they are by and large still powered by polluting sources. We aren’t reducing emissions, we’re just moving them to a different place. Sources of clean energy like nuclear, solar, wind, and hydropower must be used to replace fossil fuels if we are to gain the full benefit of transitioning to electric vehicles.

Ironically, people that live closest to polluting industries tend to be those that produce the fewest emissions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis found that after accounting for differences in population size, white people experience about 17 percent less air pollution than they produce, while Blacks and Hispanics bear 56 and 63 percent more air pollution, respectively than they cause by their consumption.

These communities should not carry the burden of dirty energy production when they are among the smallest consumers of it. The first step in the “solution” to our energy crisis is to get fossil fuels out of the communities that will suffer from climate change and localized air pollution the most, and move towards a future where they will never be necessary again.

How can nuclear power help address environmental racism?

A paper from NASA’s Goddard Institute found that global nuclear power has prevented more than 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions between the years 1971 and 2009. Today, that number is projected to have increased steadily, with respect to the nuclear plants that have closed since. If nuclear energy were to replace fossil fuels, it would be able to save as many as seven million lives by the mid-21st century.

Over the past half-century, the United States has built 92 nuclear reactors that provided about a quarter of American electricity over this time frame. There were an additional 203 nuclear plants planned, nearly half of which had begun construction, but were abandoned due to political pressure. In place of zero-carbon energy production, coal and gas plants were built, as wind and solar usually cannot expand fast enough to fulfill the power demand. In effect, almost every time a nuclear plant wasn’t built, an environmental justice community was created.

Though there has been an abundance of investment and project development focused on the next generation of nuclear reactors, there will likely be difficulties and delays in resurrecting an industry that has atrophied from almost five decades of building virtually no new power plants. This is why saving nuclear plants that are at risk of early closure is so vital to climate and environmental justice. Indian Point Nuclear Plant, a power station about 25 miles from New York City, produced 2.5 times the annual carbon-free electricity generated by every solar panel and wind turbine deployed statewide during 2019. It was forced to close after New York State denied a permit to discharge warm water into the Hudson River. Two gas-fired plants were built to replace Indian Point, which are now the 2nd and 4th largest fossil generators in the state. In-state fossil power generation increased from 38% to 49% after Indian Point shut down for the final time. According to clean-energy investor Isuru Seneviratne, “beyond New York’s borders, the closure of Indian Point is causing neighboring states to burn more fossil fuels to keep our lights on. Extrapolating from the statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, Indian Point’s closure increased greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution for New York’s electricity by nearly a third.”

The closing of “old” nuclear facilities is frequently brought about in the name of justice, but the result, which is a greater dependence on carbon-intensive energy sources, is the opposite of environmental justice. Increased air pollution in population-dense metro areas disproportionately hurts minority communities. As argued by the African American Environmentalist Association, “How many African American children should suffer from asthma in order to marginally improve the level of fish egg mortality in the Hudson River?”

The bottom line is that nuclear power is safer than its carbon-intensive alternatives. The lives of Black, Brown and poor Americans that have been strategically misvalued in the past cannot continue to be risked in the name of politics, money, or “ethics.” There is nothing ethical about the 8.7 million global deaths caused by fossil fuels.

Could renewables fix these problems?

It is important to note that nuclear advocacy does not aim to invalidate the benefits that renewable energy sources bring, especially in terms of the climate crisis, but current renewable technologies are simply not enough to displace the services provided by fossil combustion.

Modern electric grids have limited storage capacity to store the excess output from weather-dependent energy sources like wind and solar. In a “100% renewable” system the storage necessary to power society when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing is prohibitively expensive. A study in Energy & Environmental Science found that meeting 80 percent of US electricity demand with wind and solar would require a $2.5 trillion battery storage system–a cost that no one is willing to bear.

The reality is that renewables can take 360 times as much land area as nuclear power in order to produce the same amount of energy, which isn’t practical in densely populated areas with high energy demands. While renewables appear to be a flawless clean energy source, addressing environmental injustice with renewables alone may take decades to achieve, and cause new environmental justice concerns in the process.

Renewables aren’t perfectly equitable either. Between 1956 and 1978, “13 hydroelectric power stations and 11 reservoirs have been installed on Pessamit traditional territory, forcing the Pessamit Innu First Nation from its vast traditional territory to live on a small reservation on the north shores of the St. Lawrence River.” These hydroelectric facilities were constructed without impact assessment, consent, or compensation.

Furthermore, in 2012 the U.S. Department of Interior approved the establishment of a 10,000-acre wind farm, despite being aware that its installation would “destroy cultural resources and heritage of importance to the tribe,” which resulted in the Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior. The case ultimately ruled in favor of the DOI, which resulted in the destruction of sensitive wildlife habitats, areas of spiritual significance, and several Quechan cremation sites.

The time for abundant, clean energy cannot be solely dependent on the future of renewables, where the sun will always shine, and battery storage will be as cost-effective as coal. No energy source is perfect, but in terms of protecting human lives, the pinnacle of the justice effort, nuclear has contributed to the smallest number of deaths of any major energy source.

Nuclear power will not only keep future global warming beneath 1.5 degrees Celsius, but more importantly, it will allow for an immediate reduction in air pollution. The environmental justice initiative is about saving lives while saving the environment, and nuclear power is an irreplaceable factor in the fight.

___________

References

1. CA Tribe Fights Wind Farm on Sacred Land.” Sacred Land, Sacred Land Film Project, https://sacredland.org/ca-tribe-fights-wind-farm-on-sacred-land/.
2. Colarossi, Natalie. “10 Egregious Examples of Environmental Racism in the US.” Insider, Insider, 13 Aug. 2020, https://www.insider.com/environmental-racism-examples-united-states-2020-8#the-bronx-new-york-city-5.
3. Colon, Jaque. Fossil Fuel Pollution Communities of Color — Front and Centered. Front and Centered, 15 June 2017, https://www.frontandcentered.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fossil-Fuel-Pollution-Communities-of-Color.pdf.
4. “Curiel, Gonzalo P. “Quechan Tribe of Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation v. United States Dept. of Interior.” Casetext, 27 Feb. 2013, https://casetext.com/case/quechan-tribe-of-the-fort-yuma-indian-reservation-v-us-dept-of-the-interior.
5. Dettman, Louise. “Fumes across the Fence-Line: Public Health Newswire.” Public Health Newswire, American Public Health Association, 1 Mar. 2018, http://publichealthnewswire.org/?p=fumes-across-the-fence-line.
6. Eilperin, Juliet, and Darryl Fears. “Deadly Air Pollutant ‘Disproportionately and Systematically’ Harms Americans of Color, Study Finds.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 May 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/04/28/environmental-justice-pollution/.
7. Fisher, Matt, and Joanne Liou. “How Can Nuclear Replace Coal as Part of the Clean Energy Transition?” International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, 4 Oct. 2021, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-can-nuclear-replace-coal-as-part-of-the-clean-energy-transition.
8. “Fossil Fuel Racism.” Greenpeace, Greenpeace USA, 13 Apr. 2021, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/fossil-fuel-racism/.
9. “Grid Energy Storage December 2013.” Grid Energy Storage, U.S. Department of Energy, Dec. 2013, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20December%202013.pdf.
10. Jackson, Candace. “What Is Redlining?” The New York Times, 17 Aug. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/what-is-redlining.html.
11. Kharecha, Pushker A, and James E Hansen. “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and …” ACS Publications, 15 Mar. 2013, https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf.
12. Lambert, Jonathan. “Study Finds Racial Gap between Who Causes Air Pollution and Who Breathes It.” NPR, NPR, 11 Mar. 2019, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/702348935/study-finds-racial-gap-between-who-causes-air-pollution-and-who-breathes-it.
13. “Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint.” Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI, 9 July 2015, https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants#:~:text=Wind%20farms%20require%20up%20to,75%20times%20the%20land%20area.
14. Lesley, Fleischman, and Franklin Marcus. “Fumes across the Fence-Line: The Health Impacts of Air Pollution from Oil & Gas Facilities on African American Communities.” NAACP, 20 May 2021, https://naacp.org/resources/fumes-across-fence-line-health-impacts-air-pollution-oil-gas-facilities-african-american.
15. McDonald, Samuel Miller. “Is Nuclear Power Our Best Bet against Climate Change?” Boston Review, 31 Jan. 2022, https://bostonreview.net/articles/is-nuclear-power-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/.
16. Mcgeehan, Patrick. “Indian Point Is Shutting down. That Means More Fossil Fuel.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-power-plant-closing.html.
17. Nuclear New York, 30 Apr. 2022, https://www.nuclearny.org/indian-point/.
18. Office of Nuclear Energy. “3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable.” Energy.gov, 31 Mar. 2021, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20is%20a%20zero%2Demission,byproducts%20emitted%20by%20fossil%20fuels.
19. Paterson, Leigh. “When Relying on the Sun, Energy Storage Remains out of Reach.” NPR, NPR, 4 Aug. 2015, https://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/427734398/when-relying-on-the-sun-energy-storage-remains-out-of-reach.
20. Patnaik, Aneesh, et al. “Racial Disparities and Climate Change .” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 15 Aug. 2020, https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/8/15/racial-disparities-and-climate-change.
21. Plumer, Brad. “How Retiring Nuclear Power Plants May Undercut U.S. Climate Goals.” The New York Times, 13 June 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/climate/nuclear-power-retirements-us-climate-goals.html.
22. “Power Plants and Neighboring Communities.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-plants-and-neighboring-communities.
23. Saylor, Jared. “Communities of Color, Poverty Bear Burden of Air Pollution.” Earthjustice, 27 May 2011, https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2011/communities-of-color-poverty-bear-burden-of-air-pollution.
24. Simon, Rene. “My Turn: Hydro-Quebec Cannot Rewrite History.” Concord Monitor, 27 Aug. 2017, https://www.concordmonitor.com/Pessamit-Innu-say-Hydro-Quebec-can-no-longer-hide-the-facts-11991318.
25. “Statistics.” Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI, https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics.
26. Temple, James. “The $2.5 Trillion Reason We Can’t Rely on Batteries to Clean up the Grid.” MIT Technology Review, MIT, 2 Apr. 2020, https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/.

27. Wilkerson, Jordan. “Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power.” Science in the News, Harvard University, 25 Oct. 2016, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/.