  |
|
|
|
In early February, the New York Times reported that cash-desperate North Korea had agreed to store up to 200,000 barrels of Taiwanese nuclear waste for $227 million. South Korea was reportedly angry because storage is to be 40 miles from its border. It also worries partly because the proposed storage area, which encompasses old coal mines, could leak, leach into the ground and contaminate groundwater.
South Korea's anger isn't what is important, however. What is important, as the Times explains, is that other countries are waiting to see whether or not this deal goes through so they can arrange to export nuclear waste too. Japan, the Times says, has shown interest in storage in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. Taiwan's proposal to export waste is disturbing for a number of reasons. First, economically healthy countries produce more radioactive waste than poor countries. When there is no place to store waste at home, there is incentive to produce less of it, which is the best solution to the waste problem. If a country can simply export waste to another country, there is no incentive to reduce its production. We've seen this happen with municipal and industrial waste in the United States and Europe when various parties have sought to export waste to countries willing to store it. Exporting an environmental problem is no solution to that problem; it merely transfers it to someone else and relieves the producer responsibility. Out of sight, out of mind. Second, it is unethical to foist undesirable waste on a poor country. In the United States, for example, when industrial, waste storage and other environmentally sensitive activities are located in areas where poor people live, the impact on those people is said to be inequitable--not fair-- because the risks are not shared equally among everyone. The expressions "environmental equity" and "environmental justice" have arisen as a result of such practices. Exporting environmental problems to a poor country desperate for cash is inequitable, is environmentally irresponsible, and smacks of colonialism.
Third, exporting radioactive waste to a poor country like North Korea raises a number of questions about environmental security. Underdeveloped countries tend not to have a large cadre of people educated and trained well enough to manage environmental issues, let alone those that involve radioactivity. How can we expect high quality management if we can't even guarantee such management in the United States? Here, some power companies have had difficulty hiring personnel who can stay awake in the control room. They've been unable to supervise contractors that fail to manufacture parts and equipment for nuclear plants that meet specifications. Across the country there are cases of illegal dumping of toxic wastes in landfills, old quarries, fields, woodlands and roadsides. How can we expect a poor country to do better? Go To Page: 1 2
The copyright of the article Exporting Waste is Wrong in Environment is owned by Kenneth Friedman. Permission to republish Exporting Waste is Wrong in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
