Skip to main content

Hat in Hand? The IAEA Talks Money Woes

051007_elbaradei_vmed_4a.widecIf everything is timing, now was not the right time for the International Atomic Energy Agency to start a fundraising effort:

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief urged 145 member states on Monday to come to grips with an IAEA funding crisis undermining its ability to prevent nuclear proliferation threats.

Opening the IAEA's annual assembly, Mohamed ElBaradei called for urgent steps to increase funding of the U.N. watchdog, modernise equipment and enhance its legal authority to verify the nature of nuclear programmes in suspect countries.

In case you think ElBaradei might be unwilling to raise the rhetoric to alarming levels:

"It would be a tragedy of epic proportions if we fail to act (for lack of resources) until after a nuclear conflagration, accident or terrorist attack that could have been prevented."

Yes, that certainly would be a tragedy, wouldn't it? While we don't want to suggest even for an instant that the IAEA shouldn't be funded to a reasonable level - the U.N. put it charge of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - we suspect it might be pushing apocalypse in the face of a uncomfortable financial environment. (And remember, ElBaradei was talking to the membership, not you and me. Putting statements like that out to the public would qualify as fantastically inflammatory, nuclear conflagration or not.)

He urged IAEA members to accept the recommendation of an independent commission for an 80 million euro injection to modernise IAEA labs and emergency response abilities and a gradual doubling of the budget by 2020.

The IAEA's budget now is about 340 million euros, which ElBaradei has called penny-pinching.

We guess 340 million euros (or 420 million euros if you merge the two amounts given) is not so much spread among 145 member nations, though it'll be interesting to see if there's some pushback and what form it might take. We found some stories about individual conflicts between members - see here, for example - but nothing suggesting a ruction with the entity or ElBaradei.

How the assembly goes should indicate how the IAEA proceeds - and who pledges some funds or comes up with reasons not to - so let's wait and see.

Mohamed ElBaradei - that's the IAEA logo behind him. He and the organization won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for ratcheting down nuclear tensions in North Korea and Iran. There might have been an anti-U.S. bias here, as the Bush administration did not want ElBaradei to continue in another term after the latter "failed" to contain Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Someone ended up a little egg-faced and it wasn't ElBaradei.

Comments

OmegaPaladin said…
The IAEA is worthless. Like most international institutions, it is only capable of keeping the good countries in line.
Anonymous said…
ElBaradei has been extremely critical of the US in relation to Iran. Now, they are asking for more money? I would tell him to pack sand.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …