Qhat would become democracy without the help of counter-powers that maintain it in the face of the ordeals it is going through: armed conflicts, climate change, or the risk of nuclear accidents?
That a nuclear revival was decided with the greatest democratic contempt, ignoring the industrial and financial fiasco of the sector is a fact. That it is in defiance of the safety and security of citizens is another.
Indeed, the process of weakening counter-powers – which is taking place before our eyes while attention is elsewhere – hardens with an ultimate act of the prince: the announcement of the dismantling of the Institute for Radiation Protection and Safety nuclear (IRSN). Now all potential expressions of protest have been circumvented.
Therefore, how to express its legitimate opposition to a massive nuclear revival, with the construction of six new reactors, finally already decided? Proof of a desire for a passage in force, the Nuclear Policy Council of February 3 institutes an ad hoc method: to meet twice a year to self-seize the nuclear policy of France.
Multiple exemptions
Neither parliamentary debate nor citizen debate was respected. In January, in the Senate – of which Daniel Salmon, environmental senator, was the leader for the Ecologist-Solidarity and Territories group – the nuclear acceleration law was passed, even before the public debate led by the National Commission Public Debate (CNDP) has delivered its conclusions.
Multiple administrative derogations granted, in particular against environmental law, now lay the groundwork for nuclear revival and affirm that the development of renewable energies should not block that of the atom. Now, the government anticipates the possible reservations of the institutions in charge of the expertise. Now it is the turn of the Green MPs and their leader, Julie Laernoes, to continue the debate in the light of this new configuration.
Whatever the question asked and what is at stake, whether one is for or against nuclear power, controlling the major risk of nuclear accidents must be a prerequisite for any decision.
In this context, if there is one institution that ecologists defend, it is an institution that provides independent and highly competent expertise in synergy with research, that is to say the IRSN.
Independent expertise
IRSN provides independent expertise on the decision, which is the responsibility of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN). As the IRSN ethics and professional conduct commission deplored in its press release of February 15: “The confusion between expertise and decision-making would constitute a considerable setback since it would deprive this expertise of its independence. »
You have 59.65% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.