- short notes on power, politics and psychology


THOMAS ROSENBERG

Speech held at

EUROPEAN ANTI NUCLEAR MANIFESTATION      

HELSINKI NOV 9-11, 2007


        Opening slide:

        A man drilling his own head, saying:
        “When everything is in our own hands, nuclear power is absolutely safe!”

This is Finland in a nutshell. And also the answer to the question asked by so many during the last years: Why Finland? How is it possible that this small and prosperous nation in the North has gone nuts when it comes to nuclear power, and now goes in the opposite direction, compared with most of the Western world? The nuclear plans as they are ambitious, i.e. Finland aims to become a leading nation concerning know how and expertise in many parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to final deposit of radioactive waste.

The political och psychological ice breaker was definitely the decision in principle made in the parliament in 2001, concerning the final deposit of radwaste, the first decision of its kind in the world, and adopted with almost overwhelming numbers: 159 for and only 3 against. After that the road was free for the nuclear entrepreneurs: a fifth reactor, now under construction by TVO in Olkiluoto, bigger than ever before; plans for uranium mining on many different locations in Finland; a new third reactor by Fortum in Lovisa; the attempt by the German giant EON to take the people in Lovisa by surprise, by planning a new reactor next to the former ones; and finally the attempts to do it again, but now in a Trojan horse called Fennovoima, and located either in the neighboring municipality or somewhere on the west coast.

An astonishing development, indeed, compared with the political climate in the rest of Europe. And talking about the climate; this is not due to the present climate discussion, as this development has been clearly visible for years.

So, what are the reasons for this Finnish exception? Why does Finland differ in such a remarkable way? The reasons for this are of course complex, but let me summarize them in some short notes, concerning
1) the political trust
2) the environmental legislation
3) the technological hybris
4) the psycological and moral ethos


(1) The political trust

In Finland, the primary rock is unusually stable, something which is a perfect brand when selling final solutions for the spent fuel. But that goes for the political system, too. Finns do not riot, or even put the legislation seriously in question – and if so, the critiqs are very soon incorporated in the state apparatus. This was the case with the labour movement in the first part of the 20th century, and with the green movement in the latter part of the century. In most European countries there still is a strong and sovereign environmental movement – but not in Finland, as many of the activists, especially those with academic education, sooner or later are absorbed into the environmental administration, both in the public and the private sector.

Another aspect of the political trust is the strong municipal autonomy, reflecting the strong local and regional independency typical for the Nordic countries. Or to put it in Asterix’ terms: Finland is, and has always been, full of small Gallian villages! (That is, up til now, as the market economy and its centralizing logic now finally is destroying all the small communes in the country, but that is another story.). One aspect of this, of importance when dealing with nuclear matters, is the municipal veto so central for the Finnish democracy. Something which paradoxically can be in the interest of the nuclear industry.

The formally strong position of the municipalities means that the companies, be they mining industries, reactor builders or deposit planners, are forced to start at to local level. This may sound democratic but actually means a technique of ruling well known from the Roman empire, i.e. divide et impera. The first and decisive battle is fought between a giant company on one hand and small and helpless local groups on the other, usually with no connections to the national level, not to speak of the international. When the project at last reaches the national level of decision, i.e. the government and the parliament, the energy on the local level is totally gone, and the former resistance and critique therefore totally nonexistent, e.g. in the national news media.


(2) The environmental legislation

One of the main arguments in favor for nuclear expansion in Finland is that our environmental legislation and administration is so well developed. Therefore nothing that can put neither people nor nature at risk can be established – or at least so it is assumed. The main cornerstone is the law about Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), from 1994. Since that the major legitimating instrument for all major and troublesome projects in the republic, and more so, the more risky and controversial the project in question is.

Not surprisingly, the EIA-process involved in the nuclear projects have become the perhaps most effective argument in trying to gain the confidence and trust needed. Worried? No, problem, as we can offer you participation in the hearing process! This goes both for new reactors and for the final deposit of radwaste, the latter resulting in the biggest EIA so far in Finland, between 1997 and 2000). I had myself the opportunity to follow this process very closely, and have written several analyses of it, from the activist’s point of view (one of them available here as a copy).

Most of the research made on the impact of EIA points in the same direction: the assessment programs can never basicly change any major project, not to talk about stopping them, and less so the bigger the project and therefore the vested interests involved. This goes, of course, even more so for EIA:s connected with nuclear power. Our experience with the radwaste-EIA can be summarized in one word: theatre. A script made in advance, in which Goliat was doomed to defeat David.  


(3) The technological hybris

Finns trust, in general, in the state. Even greater is, however, their trust in science, technology and expertise, especially if this is Finnish. Perhaps due to the relatively short period of higher education, and the small population, Finns are very proud of their scientific and technological successes, and something like a technological or cultural critique is almost totally absent.

One reason for the absence of critique is directly connected with the smallness of the circles involved. Take nuclear fysics or geology as an example (two fields directly involved here); when everybody knows each other, and are connected with several mutual bonds, no critique or illojality is hardly ever rising.    

With success stories like Nokia and Pisa (according to which the Finnish schools are the best in Europe) this feeling of national pride, combined with mutual dependencies (or corruption, if you will) has turned into hybris. We can solve every problem, and also have the guts to do it! The latter turning us to the last point.


(4) The psychological and moral ethos

The Finnish exception, or wonder, when it comes to nuclear power, is, I think, fully understandable only when related also to the “winter war-mentality” and stubbornness characterizing the Finns, with their hard experiences from the last century. “The only country that payed its war debts” – a fact often admired by others, but also deeply influencing the Finns themselves. Others may flee from the front (especially the cowardly Swedes, our favourite object of friendly hatred), but we will always stick to our duty!

Or, to put it in terms of nuclear politics: others may flee their responsibility for the spent nuclear fuel, for also mining uranium when using nuclear energy, or something else of this kind – but we will not desert!   


                        ***
                      
So, to summarize: Finland differs in nuclear politics because of a peculiar mix of factors that in itself may sound democratic and positive (such as municipal autonomy and advanced environmental legislation), but combined with the other components at stake result in a nuclear naivety hard to believe!

Thomas Rosenberg

sociologist, freelance reseracher and columnist
chairman of the former Lovisa-movement (1997-2000), the citizen movement against nuclear waste disposal in Lovisa.
Drottninggatan 28, FIN-07900 Lovisa
+358 (0)19 532 460; +358 (0)50 528 7171; thomas.rosenberg at dnainternet.net