FSM opposes Czech power plant extension

Updated January 14, 2010 08:00:28

The Federated States of Micronesia has decided to challenge plans to extend and modernise a massive coal-fired power plant. The plant in question is in the Czech Republic and it's the European Union's 18th biggest source of carbon emissions. Undeterred by the fact it's 13,000 kilometres away, the FSM's Office of Environment and Emergency Management has sent it's assessment of why the extension shouldn't go ahead. It says the extension would impact not just the FSM but many other climate vulnerable nations.

Presenter: Helene Hofman
Speaker: Andrew Robert Yatilman, Director of the Office of Environment and Emergency Management in the Federated States of Micronesia

YATILMAN: That power plant in the Czech republic is a big one. It emits about 40 times a lot more CO2 than for the Federated States of Micronesia, so that's a big one that came to our attention especially as we were gearing up for Copenhagen so that kind of motivated us to go ahead and submit that letter.

HOFMAN: But it's 13,000 kilometres away?

YATILMAN: That's true but it's a trans-boundary problem and so it still affects the atmosphere that we all see. We're fully aware that we're miles away, thousands of miles away at the other side of the globe and as a small country and vulnerable as we are we're hoping that through this communication with the ministry that they'd be able to take into consideration when they make a decision on whether to move forward with it or not.

HOFMAN: When you were attending the Copenhagen conference were you able to speak to any members of the Czech delegation about the issue?

YATILMAN: No I wasn't, I was very busy with the negotiations itself and no one contacted me.

HOFMAN: And as for the outcome have you any idea of what your chances are of making a difference and whether the CZ goes ahead with its expansion or not?

YATILMAN: I'm really not sure, I'm not giving up hope but given the fact that we're on the other side of the globe there is that likely chance that they may just disregard, I don't want to use the word disregard but perhaps our letter may just be a very, very minor thing for them to even consider. But the point that we want to make is that we are a vulnerable country, what happens there in terms of C02 emissions affects all of us around the globe. We all share the same atmospheric space and somebody has to say something about it and do something about it. So I really don't know, I don't want to guess, I'm just hoping that whatever the outcome we would be able to influence. But if not what can we do?

HOFMAN: So it's more about awareness than results. Is there any chance you could take this to an international court for example?

YATILMAN: That is an avenue and one that the FSM will have to take a hard look at whether that's an option that we would like to take. But we have not considered that at the moment at least through this kind of information exchange. We're hoping that the Czech republic, especially the Ministry of Environment would give consideration to the concerns that we've expressed in our letters.

HOFMAN: And this is just one plant in one country, are you planning to perhaps write similar letters to other facilities?

YATILMAN: Yeah we're not going to shy away from doing something that we think would be in the interests of the FSM. But at the same time we're not going to go out and try to chase after everybody that tries to pollute the atmosphere. I think we need to look at each case and the merit of its case and make a decision where appropriate. What we should be looking for is to modernise and look for ways cut down on greenhouse gases or slow CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. In their case we didn't believe that that's what they're doing.

HOFMAN: There's been some criticism about how big polluters don't seem to be concerned by what's going to happen to smaller and developing countries. Based on the Czech Republic's response to your letters is that happening here as well?

YATILMAN: In the response from the deputy minister of environment I was not discouraged by his response. He said that very nicely he received the letter from our office and then giving us a chance to comment on the report, the assessment that had been done on the modernisations of the plant, maybe others would have to speak for us but the fact that they came back is a good sign, it's an encouraging sign that they're serious about actually hearing our concerns. And so I'm crossing my fingers hoping that we will be able to contribute if not actually influence the outcome.