On March 11, 2010 the Connect U.S. Fund brought together twenty-six leaders from think tanks, advocacy organizations, and foundations in the environmental and nuclear nonproliferation communities to discuss the potential risks associated with increased support for nuclear energy both here and abroad by the United States.

The discussion was led by Sharon Squassoni, Director of the Proliferation and Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Sharon and Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility began the meeting with an overview of the state of nuclear power in the U.S. and internationally.

Participants discussed the differences in how environmental and nonproliferation organizations approach nuclear power.  Broadly speaking, the nonproliferation community is interested in managing the nuclear power fuel cycle, stopping the spread of nuclear technology internationally.  On the other hand, the environmental community has divergent views - some are interested in stopping nuclear power entirely, and some recognize the political and/or practical necessity of a limited expansion of nuclear power in the context of reducing carbon emissions- yet most tend to view the nuclear power issue through a domestic lens.

There are several barriers to eliminating the spread of nuclear power both domestically and internationally.  First, as a few participants pointed out, many in the environmental community feel that in order to secure a climate change deal, they cannot take any options off the table - especially as nuclear power is so popular with Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Secondly, as one participant pointed out, nuclear states risk harming their nonproliferation agenda by opposing the peaceful spread of nuclear technology.  Finally, these roadblocks are bolstered by an aggressive marketing campaign by the nuclear energy industry, which is attempting to rebrand itself as "clean, safe, green."

Participants discussed areas where environmental and nonproliferation groups have common interests and arguments to curb the spread of nuclear power, including:

o  Fiscal Responsibility:  The discussion around the financial hurdles that need to be overcome to support nuclear power plants resonated with many participants.  Simply put: nuclear power plants are not fiscally viable.  At least one participant was unconcerned about large nuclear power plants raising sufficient financing, and suggested opponents focus on smaller, "micro-nuclear plants," which are much less expensive to build.  Another participant suggested that the question should be framed, "Are you for or against additional subsidies for new nuclear power plants?" - and not, "Are you for or against nuclear power?" - to get to the heart of the fiscal responsibility issue.

o  Nuclear waste:  The question of what to do with spent fuel was seen as an issue that is relevant both for domestic and international expansion of nuclear power.

o  Security:  Several participants felt that security risks at nuclear power plants and spent fuel (to be used in a dirty bomb) are an objection that might gain traction in the debate, and, again, that it is an issue both domestically and internationally.

o  Inefficiency:  With the amount of time and money necessary to get a nuclear reactor up and running, many participants pointed to the inefficiency of nuclear power in adequately addressing global energy needs.  Some participants discussed linking other forms of energy with the concept of sustainable development, and discrediting nuclear power as acceptable for sustainable development needs.

Another tactic that participants discussed is "managing," rather than outright opposing, nuclear plants.  A number of participants found this problematic, since loan guarantees and subsidies compete with funding for renewable sources of energy.

Next Steps

The Connect U.S. Fund has heard from meeting participants that this meeting was useful and that the communities involved would like to continue partnering (i.e., sharing information, collaborating where there is common policy interest).  We seek to be useful in convening these types of meetings, where Connect U.S. Fund community members can discuss sticking points blocking a common approach and policy progress in specific areas like nuclear power.

In order to keep the dialogue and discussion going, we asked participants what types of things they might find useful in their work.  If your organization is interested in a particular topic below or in another related one, please let us know so that we can support you.

Participants at the March 11 meeting brainstormed a list of potential follow-up activities, including:

• Hosting a discussion on micro-nuclear plants and what our communities could do to oppose these
• Developing a common message from both communities
• Engaging the sustainable development community so that we can have a sense for how to enable development while stopping proliferation
• Convening discussions and sharing information on the following:  the economics of nuclear power; the moral angle; reprocessing; Russian "floating" nuclear power plants
• Coming to a shared understanding of the bottom line for both communities (e.g., what's "good enough" vis-à-vis nuclear power plant development)