tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post1300487626792136048..comments2023-10-05T00:59:07.486-07:00Comments on Nature Protects, As She is Protected: From Markets With LoveViva Kermanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00322868397454837933noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post-8345195661228724422010-06-10T18:49:17.360-07:002010-06-10T18:49:17.360-07:00Thanks for your comment. My quick response:
Beca...Thanks for your comment. My quick response: <br /><br />Because of the cost involved in clean up, even elsewhere, if not governments, it is consortia of nuclear operators who pay up - that is also what the Price Anderson Act provides for beyond the first $300 million or so. The operators' cap is set based on the insurance capacity of operators put together. In fact, the whole idea of legally mandated insurance coverage is, in a sense, a violation of the polluter pays principle but the amounts involved make that a necessity. <br /><br />You are right that protecting business interest is an integral aspect of this legislation but without that protection, it is doubtful whether investment can be attracted to the industry at all. Protecting businesses is thus not the 'overarching priority' but an essential prerequisite to develop an industry that is still, relatively speaking, in a nascent stage. Also, if a disaster at one facility ends up forcing all other operators to sell their assets to pay for compensation, the entire industry effectively dies in the process. Surely, you realize the implications for the country at large of having to make do without a significant portion of its power generating capacity? So, there are several reasons why a cap on the operator's liability makes sense.<br /><br />From the victims' standpoint, what matters is whether they get compensated adequately and in a timely manner, not where the money comes from. So the bill is not necessarily a violation of any right.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post-5893645098642151592010-06-09T22:28:56.442-07:002010-06-09T22:28:56.442-07:00cbcnn_Pilid
Thanks for directing me to your post,...cbcnn_Pilid<br /><br />Thanks for directing me to your post, which was excellent.<br />The issue is not about the merits or demerits of Nuclear – or about it being the enemy of the people with environmental concerns . Ironically this also seems to have changed in the light of GHG emissions and is increasingly identified as a solution to our energy future in the light of climate change.<br />The issue is with the liability cap.<br />While I hear what you are saying I am not sure I still can agree with you.<br />Accidents can bankrupt private companies that build these reactors and no insurance company willing to take on the risk of indemnifying against such a huge liability; and neither will a company commit to payments that they know are beyond their resources – hence Price-Anderson Act in the US, if I understand correctly.<br /><br />But in this bill the Polluter Principle is totally weak and that really the government will have to deal with/pay for the consequences. Why the cap of only Rs 500 crores to be paid for by the operator.? We all know that this is a paltry sum and nuclear disasters are lethal, affecting generations to come.<br />This is what I just dont get .<br /><br />But then I guess if you have business interest as the overarching priority, then you limit the liability this low sum so that you make it profitable for the operators. A bit twisted ? Therefore I think Soli Sorabjee is right when he said that the bill in this form is a blatant violation of our fundamental right<br /><br />Having said that, your post was great !Viva Kermanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00322868397454837933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post-65642231404446983422010-06-07T20:07:03.952-07:002010-06-07T20:07:03.952-07:00I am writing this in response to your repeated twe...I am writing this in response to your repeated tweets attacking the nuclear liability bill. With respect, from your repeated allegations, I suspect you do not quite follow the rationale of the bill. I am posting this comment here to suggest that you please read my <a href="http://pilid.centreright.in/2010/03/the-civil-nuclear-liability-bill-its-rationale-and-related-issues/" rel="nofollow">post</a> explaining this bill in some detail before you criticize it further. Thanks.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post-54444404542644275192010-06-01T19:33:16.465-07:002010-06-01T19:33:16.465-07:00Oh absolutely - this works exactly like CDM - the ...Oh absolutely - this works exactly like CDM - the only turn on is that money is released upfront and not at the end of the project - under CDM the verification takes very long - infact that has discouraged players . The market feels that with , millions will get released.Viva Kermanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00322868397454837933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-710495489060267237.post-68515822303296253582010-06-01T02:04:54.120-07:002010-06-01T02:04:54.120-07:00So this is still technically an offset which may n...So this is still technically an offset which may not really reduce emissions, rather give rich people and countries a way to get out of their obligations?by kaavya naghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290774491965909044noreply@blogger.com