NINA NETZER AND JOCHEN STEINHILBER(EDS.)| THE END OF NUCLEAR ENERGY? avoidably influence the future of developing countries as well. The decision on whether to bear the risks of nuclear energy a couple of years longer or to instead opt for a nuclear phase-out and rely on coal to a larger extent until the initial investment costs for renewable energy produc­tion decrease will increase industrialized countries’ carbon footprint, contributing to global warming and subsequent negative effects on developing and emerging countries as well. Industrialized countries would be sending out the wrong signal by substituting for nuclear energy with car­bon-intensive energy sources such as coal, relocating their carbon emissions to developing countries with the help of instruments such as the CDM while at the same time asking poorer countries to reduce emissions and boost their economic growth in a sustainable way. There is therefore widespread concern in developing coun­tries that the nuclear roll-back or even phase-out in indus­trialized countries such as Germany or Japan could lead to an expansion in the use of fossil fuels, mainly coal and gas, which would lead to an increase in carbon emissions over the short term. Aside from its finiteness and negative impact on human health and environmental sustainability, coal in particular(a very carbon-intensive energy source) is one of the main drivers of ongoing climate change worldwide. Its use negatively affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at present, nor will this be any dif­ferent in the future. Global warming is already having a severe impact in many countries in the form of droughts, flooding or hurricanes, consequently leading to losses of natural resources and thus people’s means of existence, while jeopardising social and economic development. Even though many countries have already instituted a host of political, economic and informational measures seeking to promote the expansion of renewable energies or an in­crease in energy efficiency through laws and regulations or through massive public and private investment in green infrastructures or technological development, many devel­oping and emerging countries still rely to a large extent on coal because it is a cheap source of energy. In addition, they argue(and justifiably so) that industrialized countries have attained their high standard of life in their present form of economy based on finite and carbon-intensive fossil ener­gies. Developing and emerging countries, which in histori­cal terms bear comparatively little responsibility for climate change, will be the countries most hard put to deal with the effects of global warming and scarce resources due to their geography, weak coping capacities, high concentrations of poverty and more vulnerable social, institutional and phy­sical infrastructures. By using the internationally accepted goal of keeping global warming below the critical 2° C mark as a reference point, a pretty precise total global emis­sions budget can be calculated on the amount of emissions which can still be tolerated. The industrialized countries have already far exceeded their budget by producing at the expense of the entire global community for decades. This situation is frequently interpreted as a right to devel­opment, i. e. a right to generate economic growth on the basis of cheap, finite and carbon-intensive energy-sources and especially coal as well, by developing and emerging economies. At the same time, however, these countries do not want to miss the opportunity to participate in the benefits of green growth. Against the background of an ongoing depletion of resources and volatile oil and gas pri­ces, the expansion of renewable energy sources and an increase in energy efficiency offer a way to satisfy growing energy demands, diversify national energy sources and re­duce dependence on energy imports as well as boost local economic development with green technologies and pro­ducts. There is widespread agreement that industrialized countries are obliged to take the lead in combating the impact of climate change in countries affected by it as well as in financing investments for the shift to lower-carbon and climate-resilient economies in developing countries while at the same time making the necessary adjustments in their own growth patterns. To consider coal as an alternative option in the event of a nuclear roll-back or phase-out would be thinking in the wrong direction and could further undermine the al­ready tattered trust between developed and developing countries. In a worst-case scenario, this could lead to a deadlock in ongoing negotiations for a new internatio­nal agreement on climate change. Instead, industrialized countries need to set a good example, showing that neither nuclear energy nor fossil fuels are reliable options and that the promotion of a sustainable energy supply can help develop the economy and serve as an engine of job-creation. The cataclysmic accidents in Fukushima have once again emphatically underscored that the dan­gers of nuclear energy cannot be controlled by human beings despite all the technological progress which has been made and all the safety precautions instituted and many countries have subsequently begun to rethink their energy policies. A move away from nuclear energy does not necessarily mean a step backward for climate protection – the current situation, rather, offers a win­dow of opportunity for a worldwide energy revolution. 12