As a Catholic I thought it would be interesting to examine
the Christian ethical stance on nuclear energy and compare it to my own. From
initial scans of literature it is clear that I am not exactly aligned with the
general attitudes of the Church. The first explicit opposition to nuclear
energy was provided by Pope Francis in an audience with the Bishops of Japan.
He likened the human quest for nuclear energy to the Biblical story of the “Tower
of Babel”. This story saw humans exceeding their role within the natural restraints
– by attempting to build a tower directly to heaven. This project ended in their
own destruction – Pope Francis therefore feels humans are going beyond what we
are naturally here to achieve, meaning human destruction is potentially a
result (Buff 2015). This was in response to the Fukushima disaster, where
Japanese Bishops at the time demanded the state shutdown all reactors, due to
the risk of mortality. This statement was the first to oppose nuclear energy,
progressing from the previous stance that was explicitly in opposition to nuclear
weapons only (Buff 2015).
 |
| Illustration of the Tower of Babel - Humanity breaching the God-given natural laws. Image (Mallett 2008). |
The Christian stewardship ethic develops from Genesis, where
humans were given dominion over all life that shares the Earth with humanity (Christianto 2013). This stewardship ethic is not only a
product of maintaining the role provided by God, but also an ethic based
on the “New Creation”, the Earth that will be produced in harmony and equity
following the return of God (Butler 1979). Therefore not only does the ethic suggest
we must be stewards to all life now, but also in the future to ensure the Earth
is ready for the New Creation. This has obvious ties to nuclear energy – for
example the inter-generational concerns of nuclear waste providing future risks of
freshwater contamination, biodiversity pollution or human death, to name a few. However,
it could be argued that climate change provides similar threats. Therefore nuclear
energy may potentially be required to become a steward of life, as the loss of
life from climate change may exceed anything imaginable via nuclear energy.
Nuclear has the potential to destroy life (Butler 1979);
therefore in this sense it would be opposed by the Christian Stewardship ethic.
Taken to a basic level, the commandant “You shall not kill” may conflict with
the widespread implementation of nuclear energy (PCA 1987). If nuclear is
implemented with the knowledge that there is the potential to kill, with past
evidence displaying the threat to life, then it may be argued that nuclear is
treading a fine line with this vastly important commandment. When taking into account
the potential proliferation of nuclear material and waste for use in weapons
and terrorism then this more explicitly highlights the conflict and Christian
opposition (PCA 1987).
The stewardship ethic can expand into the economic side of
nuclear energy, with many developing nations often taking out exponential loans
to fund nuclear projects (Christianto 2013). The social detriment that vast
debts can provide are obvious, they include reduced education, health care and
other public services in order to repay the loans. This once again would
conflict with the Christian ethic of stewardship, not only does nuclear construction
place the people at greater risk, but it also can boost global inequality and
human suffering.
 |
| Pope Francis is not very happy about the potential detriment of nuclear... Image (Sdcharg Blog Account 2015). |
Therefore it is suggested that Christians should push for
other renewable options (Christianto 2013), such as wind, solar and hydro. This
is perhaps ignorant to the risks and damages that these often “romanticised”
options can provide. I acknowledge the risks at hand, yet I have to go against the
Church by continuing to support the nuclear potential. If the view point is
driven by stewardship to all life and inter-generational equality – then climate
change must surely be acknowledged as a greater threat to this ethical stance.
If nuclear can be influential in the fight against climate change and the biodiversity
damage it causes, then it should be promoted as a suitable energy option!
What an interesting perspective on nuclear energy, Loz! I really enjoyed reading this post as someone who is also quite religious. I completely agree that surely climate change has already threatened our future generational stewardship! If nuclear can help prevent biodiversity losses and protect our human population for many generations to come, then we must not rule it out. Sadly, other renewable options like solar and wind power just do not seem economically viable for the high-energy society we live in.
ReplyDeleteThanks Katy! Stewardship and the Christian ethic does raise many questions and arguably contradictions. I do not feel it is the best approach to analyse the nuclear potential. When stewardship is referred to protecting life - then this obviously raises many questions in regards to "what is life?" Pope Francis has also been very influential in pushing for climate change mitigation, so can he really say nuclear should be avoided?! I think it is a very difficult perspective to analyse nuclear from and will most probably differ between people's variable perspectives!
DeleteThis is such an interesting post, really provides a fresh look at some of the options!
ReplyDeleteI really found the comparision by the church of nuclear power to the Tower of Babel really interesting. Whilst this does have some significant connotations, I feel the levels of technology that constitute us becoming too big for our boots are so subjective that it becomes really hard to argue nuclear power as us exceeding our place in nature. The sun, a very natural entity indeed, uses nuclear fission to generate huge amounts of power, so can it not be said that we are merely continuing to mimic nature?
In regards to your second point, about nuclear energy being dangerous and threatening lives, I think the counter-arguments here are twofold. One, as you said, the amount of environmental destruction that nuclear mitigates surely outweighs the risks it poses to biodiversity and life on earth. Secondly, in regards to nuclear power being a "source of evil", I really think it depends on how the tool is used. Whilst it can be used for evil, I believe there is also signficant agency for nuclear power to be a tool for good, mitigating the effects of climate change. If we make it evil, it is a fault with humanity, not with the tool itself. Many things have the power to destroy life, however they should not be rejected on this principle.
Cheers Joe those are some great points in which I have to agree with! If nuclear is exceeding our natural limits then a lot of things we take for granted in our modern lives would have to be questioned also?! In terms to the threat to life then I don't think it sees it as evil, but I do think it is a product of past experiences and disasters. I think many things have the potential to damage life but nuclear has a stereotype that is arguably not avoidable even within an ethical theory. Thanks again
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Loz, it is interesting to read about nuclear energy from a different perspective, and it is very well written as well. Leading up to the Paris agreement I think Pope Francis' played a very positive role calling for emission cuts and chastising climate deniers, even leaving his shoes in a shoe protest in Paris following the ban on public protest. Of course, I appreciate the potential dangers of nuclear energy. However, I personally feel that is unrealistic to rule out nuclear energy when in order to keep well below 2C and meet the requirements of the Paris agreement, which requires zero net carbon emissions within the second half of the century. I would be interested to find out more how with no nuclear at all, we can reduce emission to a significant enough degree.
ReplyDeleteI agree it has to be used to an extent at least! My feeling is that Pope Francis is far more "modern" than many of the previous Popes, far more in touch with the modern world. That is why I found it quite strange that he had a strong anti-nuclear view - it may have been a product of the Fukushima disaster and such quotes were more reactive than his full view. Thanks for the compliments!
ReplyDeleteHiiii Laurence, this is a v exciting approach to the nuclear energy debate, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteThis is an unquestionably mainstream take on Christianity's stance of nuclear power, but I was wondering if there is any difference of opinion with other religious factions within Christianity. I've no idea myself between the ethical variations of say Protestants compared to Catholic. It would be interesting to compare their practices though.