The United States has a growing inventory of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants that continues to accumulate at reactor sites around the country.

In addition, the legacy waste from U.S. defense programs remains at Department of Energy sites around the country, mainly at Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and at Idaho National Laboratory.

Image

“The processing and handling of waste is slow to stopped and in this environment the pressure has become very great to do something.”

Currently, more than seventy thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from civilian reactors is sitting in temporary aboveground storage facilities spread across 35 states, with many of the reactors that produced it shut down.  And U.S. taxpayers are paying the utilities billions of dollars to keep it there.

Meanwhile, the deep geologic repository where all that waste was supposed to go, in Yucca Mountain Nevada, is now permanently on hold, after strong resistance from Nevada residents and politicians led by U.S. Senator Harry Reid.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad New Mexico, the world’s first geologic repository for transuranic waste, has been closed for over a year due to a release of radioactivity.

And other parts of the system, such as the vitrification plant at Hanford and the mixed oxide fuel plant at Savannah River , SC, are way behind schedule and over budget.

It’s a growing problem that’s unlikely to change this political season.

“The chances of dealing with it in the current Congress are pretty much nil, in my view,” said former U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

“We’re not going to see a solution to this problem this year or next year.”

The issue in Congress is generally divided along political lines, with Republicans wanting to move forward with the original plan to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, while Democrats support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to create a new organization to manage nuclear waste in the U.S. and start looking for a new repository location using an inclusive, consent-based process.

“One of the big worries that I have with momentum loss is loss of nuclear competency,” said David Clark, a Fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Image

Meanwhile, other countries are moving ahead with plans for their own repositories, with Finland and Sweden leading the pack, leaving the U.S. lagging behind.

So Ewing decided to convene a series of high-level conferences, where leading academics and nuclear experts from around the world can discuss the issues in a respectful environment with a diverse range of stakeholders – including former politicians and policy makers, scientists and representatives of Indian tribes and other effected communities.

“For many of these people and many of these constituencies, I’ve seen them argue at length, and it’s usually in a situation where a lot seems to be at stake and it’s very adversarial,” said Ewing.

“So by having the meeting at Stanford, we’ve all taken a deep breath, the program is frozen in place, nothing’s going to go anywhere tomorrow, we have the opportunity to sit and discuss things. And I think that may help.”

Former Senator Bingaman said he hoped the multidisciplinary meetings, known at the “Reset of Nuclear Waste Management Strategy and Policy Series”, would help spur progress on this pressing problem.

“There is a high level of frustration by people who are trying to find a solution to this problem of nuclear waste, and there’s no question that the actions that we’ve taken thus far have not gotten us very far,” Bingaman said.

“I think that’s why this conference that is occurring is a good thing, trying to think through what are the problems that got us into the mess we’re in, and how do we avoid them in the future.”

The latest conference, held earlier this month, considered the question of how to structure a new nuclear waste management organization in the U.S.

Speakers from Sweden, Canada and France brought an international perspective and provided lessons learned from their countries nuclear waste storage programs.

“The other…major programs, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Canada, they all reached a crisis point, not too different from our own,” said Ewing.

“And at this crisis point they had to reevaluate how they would go forward. They each chose a slightly different path, but having thought about it, and having selected a new path, one can also observe that their programs are moving forward.”

France has chosen to adopt a closed nuclear cycle to recycle spent fuel and reuse it to generate more electricity.

Image

“We also reduce the toxicity because…we are removing the plutonium. And finally, we are conditioning the final waste under the form of nuclear glass, the lifetime of which is very long, in the range of a million years in repository conditions.”

Clark said that Stanford was the perfect place to convene a multidisciplinary group of thought leaders in the field who could have a real impact on the future of nuclear waste storage policy.

“The beauty of a conference like this, and holding it at a place like Stanford University and CISAC, is that all the right people are here,” he said.

“All the people who are here have the ability to influence, through some level of authority and scholarship, and they’ll be able to take the ideas that they’ve heard back to their different offices and different organizations.  I think it will make a difference, and I’m really happy to be part of it.”

Ewing said it was also important to include students in the conversation.

“There’s a next generation of researchers coming online, and I want to save them the time that it took me to realize what the problems are,” Ewing said.

“By mixing students into this meeting, letting them interact with all the parties, including the distinguished scientists and engineers, I’m hoping it speeds up the process.”

Professor Ewing is already planning his next conference, next March, which will focus on the consent-based process that will be used to identify a new location within the U.S. for a repository.

Three CISAC scientists have joined 26 of the nation’s top nuclear experts to send an open letter to President Obama in support of the Iran deal struck in July.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements,” the group of renowned scientists, academics and former government officials wrote in the letter dated August 8, 2015.

“This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

CISAC senior fellow and former Los Alamos National Laboratory director Sig Hecker is a signatory to the letter, along with CISAC co-founder Sid Drell, and cybersecurity expert and CISAC affiliate Martin Hellman.

Six Nobel laureates also signed, including FSI senior fellow by courtesy and former Stanford Linear Accelerator director Burton Richter.

The letter arrives at a crucial time for the Obama administration as it rallies public opinion and lobbies Congress to support the Iran agreement.

You can read the full letter along with analysis from the New York Times at this link.

Introduction and Contribution:

Addressing the climate crisis will require concerted action from political parties. Western countries arguably bear a greater responsibility to act given their greater levels of wealth. Some of this wealth has been accumulated at the expense of the countries most affected by climate change. Yet Western political parties vary widely in terms of their positions on environmental protection, particularly across Europe. Some parties conceive of climate action as a moral imperative, as a costly endeavor in which the government should not be involved, or even as a conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty.

Environmental party platforms would intuitively seem to align with familiar political “cleavages” — parties that support economic redistribution tend to favor climate action, while those resistant to social change tend to oppose it. But Europe is a continent with distinct regional and historical legacies. Indeed, some countries left the Communist bloc less than 35 years ago. All of this complicates simple inferences about party platforms and requires more thorough efforts to validate our intuitions. 

In “How green is my party?,” Anna Grzymala-Busse, Piotr Jabkowski, and Mariusz Baranowski assess the determinants of environmental platforms across 280 European parties in 38 countries. The authors find a significant relationship between support for climate action and three cleavages: the economy, cultural values, and populism. As one might expect, parties with right-wing economic positions and conservative cultural positions are less likely to support environmental protection. More surprisingly, both right- and left-wing populist parties are less likely to support climate action. However, these general associations vary considerably across regions, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

The authors show that regional differences, especially between CEE and Northwestern or Southern Europe, persist and map onto climate politics. At the same time, and as populist parties in CEE such as Hungary’s Fidesz and Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) gain power and promote climate skepticism, the reader gains a sense of why these parties depart from traditional understandings of European politics and ideology.

More generally, populist parties and movements have garnered huge followings in places as diverse as India, the United States, and Brazil. “How green is my party?” deepens our understanding of why these movements can be so unwilling to budge on addressing climate change. 

Data and Findings:

The authors use data from a 2019 questionnaire of nearly 1900 European party and election experts. The three cleavages mentioned above are measured on an 11-point scale, with higher values indicating more right-wing, conservative, and populist platforms. Countries are grouped into three regions: Northwest, South, and CEE. The South Caucasus and the closed autocracies of Russia and Belarus are excluded.
 

Image

Figure 1. European democratic countries covered by the Global Party Survey, 2019.
 

Two of the most interesting contributions in “How green is my party?” are to show that (a) populism is significant in shaping opposition to climate action and (b) CEE remains a distinctive region in respect of its climate politics. Why might this be the case? 

Regarding populism, one would expect left-wing populists — who denounce a wealthy elite as standing against “the people” — to support climate action. Indeed, this elite can be easily constructed as destroying the environment in order to accumulate wealth. However, the authors note that left populists tend to deemphasize environmental issues or reframe them as purely economic. For example, such parties have been skeptical of policies such as tax breaks for electric vehicle production, on the grounds that they primarily benefit wealthy corporations. 

More generally, populists tend to view appeals to scientific consensus with skepticism, as “technocratic” schemes to undermine the people. This likely explains why the authors find a strong association between populism and opposition to environmental action across all three European regions (Southern, Northwest, and CEE). Interestingly, right populists are not found to be particularly likely to oppose environmental protection. Left and right populists are also more likely to oppose climate action than social conservatives.
 

Image

Figure 3. Moderating effect of populism on the impact of party position on social conservatism-liberalism on the position on the environmental protection scale.
 

CEE is distinctive in part because right-wing populist parties have thrived there. Many of these parties view climate action as a foreign, leftist conspiracy. This has fueled skepticism and opposition to green agendas. Meanwhile, CEE’s reliance on fossil fuels has led parties to view climate action as a threat to economic growth — and thus as political suicide. For these reasons and because CEE states are relatively new, the region also lacks strong environmental civil society organizations or green parties. On the 11-point scale, median opposition to environmental action in CEE is about one point higher than in Southern Europe and nearly three points higher than in Northwestern Europe.
 

Image

Figure 2. Parties’ positions on environmental issues by region of Europe.
 

A third notable finding is that the intuitive link between economic and cultural values is weaker in CEE. In other words, opposition to environmental protection is only associated with the economic right in South and Northwest Europe. This is because populist parties in CEE tend to support both economic redistribution and conservative cultural values. Redistribution is framed as a means of protecting people from perceived threats to their way of life, such as immigration or social liberalism. By contrast, CEE social liberals tend to support the free market, a position owing to their negative experiences with communist central planning.

“How green is my party?” both accounts for the high degree of variation across European party platforms and identifies patterns and regional clusters to help readers sift through climate politics across the continent. It remains to be seen whether supranational institutions such as the EU can offset weak climate action by some European ruling parties.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

What’s the most exciting finding from your research, and why does it matter for democracy and development?

In the mid-1990s, I worked in the U.S. government at the State Department and the National Security Council, focusing on Russia and European security. One of the major issues at the time was whether NATO should expand to include countries in Central and Eastern Europe. I later wrote a book on that decision, which was published in 1999.

One of the most important things I found was that NATO enlargement didn’t come from a single formal decision by the president and his cabinet. Instead, it developed gradually, driven by individuals who believed strongly in the policy and worked to move it forward over time. It was a much more incremental and contested process than people often assumed.

What was especially significant was that policymakers saw NATO enlargement as a way to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe. By offering countries the prospect of membership, they hoped to encourage democratic reforms and political stability. I think NATO enlargement had a profound impact on democratic development in the region, and my research helped explain how and why that policy came about.

What have been some of the most challenging aspects of conducting research in this field, and how did you overcome them?

Much of my work sits at the intersection of political science and history, and one of the biggest challenges is studying relatively recent events, where records are often incomplete. When you study earlier historical periods, you have access to archives and official records, but when you study more recent foreign policy decisions, much of that material is still classified.

Because of that, I’ve relied heavily on interviews with policymakers and officials. Interviews are incredibly valuable, but they also have limitations. People remember events differently, and often present events in a light that best reflects their own role or perspective, which is why it’s important to interview multiple people and compare their accounts to develop a more accurate understanding of what happened.

I’ve also used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain declassified documents, although that process can take many years. Some requests I filed for my 1999 book didn’t produce results until I was working on later books in 2003 and even 2008. But over time, those documents helped confirm and strengthen my understanding of how key decisions were made. Doing this kind of research requires patience, but it’s essential if you want to understand how foreign policy actually develops.

How has the field changed since you started, and what gives you hope?

The field has changed quite a bit since I finished my PhD in 1990. One major shift was that after the Cold War ended, there was less emphasis on area studies and regional expertise. When I was trained, people were expected to combine theoretical work with deep knowledge of particular regions, which is now less common. 

What gives me hope is the current generation of students. Many students today are highly capable of integrating knowledge of politics and history with technological expertise. Especially at places like Stanford, students have the opportunity to combine social science knowledge with new technologies. I think that combination will shape the future of the field.

What gaps still exist in your research, and what projects are you currently working on?

I’m currently working on a project with Michael McFaul and Elizabeth Economy on great power competition, focusing on how major powers try to influence the foreign policy orientation of smaller states. It’s an important issue, especially given the current international environment.

I’ve also continued working on NATO enlargement and its long-term consequences. When I published my book on NATO expansion in 1999, I didn’t expect that these issues would still be so central decades later. But NATO enlargement continues to shape relations between Russia, Europe, and the United States, particularly in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Hence, understanding how those earlier decisions connect to current events remains a major focus of my work.

What advice would you give to students interested in this field?

Students should focus on topics that genuinely interest them. You can’t predict what will be important five or ten years from now. Choosing a topic solely because you think it will be important in the future isn’t a good strategy if you’re not truly interested in it. Instead, study subjects that motivate you and that you feel compelled to understand. Unexpected events can suddenly make your area of interest highly relevant. Passion and curiosity are essential for meaningful research.

What book would you recommend to students interested in international relations?

I recommend Robert Jervis’s Perception and Misperception in International Politics, published in 1976. Jervis was one of the most brilliant scholars in international relations and had a major influence on the field.

His book explores how leaders interpret and misinterpret the world, and how those perceptions shape international relations. It combines insights from politics, psychology, and history, and helps explain why cooperation between states is often difficult. It’s an excellent starting point for anyone who wants to understand the role of leadership and perception in international politics.