The climate talks at COP29 did not accomplish their goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions. An encouraging factor of the COP29 talks is the renewed focus on nuclear use to mitigate the climate change crisis. Proponents of nuclear energy have emphasized its reliability as a low-carbon energy source, positioning it as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
A total of 31 countries have committed to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050 by achieving net-zero emissions. At Global Stocktake 2023 held by the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC), both parties and non-parties categorically called for ‘Nuclear Acceleration‘ to decarbonize Earth. After that, the unprecedented first Nuclear Energy Summit 2024 was held to expedite those efforts. However, the discriminatory nature of the nuclear governance regime, mainly of the export control regimes, could hinder efforts to use nuclear energy for achieving net-zero carbon emissions and ultimately dampen the climate change mitigation goal.
The obsolete laws governing the ECRs affect the ethical foundation of nuclear energy exploitation. The export control regimes deal with the transfer of peaceful nuclear technologies and, thus control the distribution of nuclear energy. However, the archaic regulations of those export controls impede the exploitation of nuclear energy benefits.
Their static criterion for awarding memberships is based upon their categorization according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article IX (3) of NPT defines a nuclear weapon state (NWS) which detonated nuclear weapons prior to 1967, and all other states were to be regarded as a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS).
It is unrealistic to expect a de facto nuclear power to give up its nuclear arsenal being acquired for its national interest. Therefore, the categorical nature of the NPT classification criteria hinders the non-discriminatory provision of advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, such as Small Modular Reactors. These technologies are crucial for providing clean energy in remote areas with limited grid infrastructure.
If selected states are given access while other states are blocked from accessing these technologies, it hinders their ability to contribute to global decarbonization goals. As a result, many developing states face barriers to acquiring advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Despite possessing nuclear technical expertise and a proven nuclear safety and security record, Pakistan cannot increase nuclear energy volume in its energy mix, owing to the biased approach of ECRs. This dims the prospects of its energy vision to double the production of nuclear energy by 2030.
The existing global nuclear technology asymmetries make the use of peaceful nuclear technologies for tackling the climate crisis very difficult. The glimpse of discriminatory nuclear nonproliferation Regime has created a ‘nuclear apartheid of peaceful technologies’, where peaceful technologies abound in the global north but are lacking in the hemisphere. This has divided the world into haves and have-nots. There are 349 nuclear reactors in the global north, but 91 in the entire global south. It creates a nuclear north and south divide where the latter lags the former by 79.3 percent. As illustrated in the graphs, nuclear energy for electricity generation in the global north is greater than the quantity generated in the developing countries or global south.
The nuclear solution laid out at COP 29 seems impractical. The existing stagnant regulation policies of the nuclear trade regime are not a good omen for the just and fair usage of peaceful nuclear technology. The global nuclear divide hinders the prospects of equitable distribution of peaceful nuclear gains and the politicization of nuclear energy only widens it. The existing gaps derail the true purpose of nuclear energy and reduce it to a geopolitical tool. With the conclusion of COP 29 without any practical strategies to tackle all those challenges, the nuclear solution for the climate crisis remains a distant dream, at least for some decades to come.
The reason is the unequal distribution of peaceful nuclear technologies across the globe. Therefore, it is far-fetched to expect much from nuclear technology when nearly half of the globe is deprived of its equitable and fair distribution.
The politicization of the nuclear solution has derailed the achievement of the NetZero emission target. Geopolitically, states are acquiring nuclear technology in the guise of meaningful contributions to carbon reduction while pursuing their ulterior interests disingenuously.
While actively contributing to carbon emissions, India is not only relying on fossil fuel-based systems for electricity generation but also investing more into it. For instance, India’s energy mix is more than 80 per cent of fossil fuel-based sources of electricity generation, which it plans to increase 93 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity by 2032. But, it is not meaningfully contributing to global carbon reduction despite having secured the unjustified preferential NSG waiver and the US civil nuclear energy cooperation for ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy ambitions. This waiver also underscores the dual standards within the nuclear governance regime, as was granted to a non-NPT NWS whose violation had led to the creation of the very same NSG. Such dualistic precedents are demotivating factors for countries that are striving to legally access peaceful nuclear technology and to switch from fossil fuel-based sources of electricity generation to nuclear-based sources of electricity generation.
The geopolitical factors are also imperiling the achievement of the nuclear solution. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and a group of top ten climate experts revealed the duplicitous role of states and wrote an open letter. They illustrated the host of COP 29 was holding the presidency despite a strong association with the hydrocarbon business. India is trying to host the COP 33 despite the duplicitous domestic energy mix policies mentioned earlier. Similarly, a tug-of-war between Turkey and Australia is taking place to host the distant COP 31.
Many other wealthy states showed weak resolve and avoided engagement in climate change negotiations. Argentina called back their representatives in the COP 29 and Saudi Arabia rejected the final agreement for adopting a text criticizing fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House also seems to be a bad omen since he has a track record of opposing climate change mitigation talks, such as the Paris Agreement.
Resultantly, COP 29 concluded without any concrete mechanism to decrease the global ‘peaceful nuclear technologies disparities’ among the haves and haves not. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Presidency COP 29 discussed the financing options for low-carbon technologies. They vowed to ‘accelerate the deployment’ of those peaceful nuclear technology-oriented clean energy sources in developed and developing countries alike, but just on paper.
At the peaceful nuclear technology haves’ p,ole, the European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular Reactors has been formed that facilitates the deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but only in Europe which already quantitatively surpasses the nuclear reactors in the global south. Whereas the global south has yet to wait for the funding to adopt this costly SMR technology that has huge cost estimates depending upon their size and shape from $50 million to $3 billion.
Moreover, any financial expectation from the global north would be an illusion considering its track record. The recent study by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the adaptation gap report shows the ignorance of the global north towards their shared responsibility of the climate adaptation fund. The adaptation gap between sending and receiving countries, developed and underdeveloped and more climate-vulnerable states, is 50 percent greater than assumed before the study was undertaken. Due to this reason, COP 29 was regarded by the global south as a ‘betrayal’ due to the escape of the global north from their burden, as the latter is the largest contributor to the climate crisis.
The nuclear solution laid out at COP 29 seems impractical. The existing stagnant regulation policies of the nuclear trade regime are not a good omen for the just and fair usage of peaceful nuclear technology. The global nuclear divide hinders the prospects of equitable distribution of peaceful nuclear gains and the politicization of nuclear energy only widens it. The existing gaps derail the true purpose of nuclear energy and reduce it to a geopolitical tool. With the conclusion of COP 29 without any practical strategies to tackle all those challenges, the nuclear solution for the climate crisis remains a distant dream, at least for some decades to come.
