4. Dialog with conservative politician Isabella

Ran: In Thore’s lecture, I agree that we need the help of science to measure the environmental impacts of each energy source in all stages and choose the most relevant, less exploitive resource use energy adaptable to local contexts.

One question is that Thore, a traditionally left-wing voter and climate activist, always collided with left-wing politicians’ and activists’ anti-nuclear opinions. He felt lost in the political scene. Ironically, conservative parties share more with him regarding the pro-nuclear aspect. And again, our proposal to discuss nuclear energy with green parties and environmental activists was unsuccessful, often refused or postponed. Unexpectedly, Isabella Arendt, a politician from the Conservative People’s Party, accepted. We proposed to ask about her political views on climate, climate solutions and the awkward situation, and the division of nuclear stance between left and right. 

Interview with Isabella Arent

(Conservative Paty in Denmark) 

Ran: We are very grateful for meeting you, and thanks for sharing your time with us. I am Ran. I work as a choreographer, performing artist, and artist-researcher.

Thore: I am Thore. I have studied geophysics about climate, ice and meteorology-related themes. 

Ran: Our project is about rethinking and reconsidering nuclear energy as one of the solutions to the climate crisis discussion. Since it is a disputative topic and sometimes considered taboo to speak about it. The nuclear energy discussion was a conflict inside my family and, at the same time, a big conflict in society. However, we want to have it on the table and understand various actors’ opinions and concerns. I think personally, it is an important issue when we navigate this climate issue in cooperation with science and technology, at the same time, when we request our government to take immediate action for climate change.

Thore: Our idea is to try to interview different people with different backgrounds and different opinions. Both in regards to climate and nuclear energy. The reason we found you is you have a background as a politician, you have been interested in climate, and also you have shown that you are open to nuclear energy. We got curious about hearing from you. Because there aren’t many politicians who are open to talking about nuclear energy, it’s nice to hear from the politicians who actually do.

Ran: Can you introduce yourself to us and also to other audiences?

Isabella: Yes. Thank you for having me. I find this topic of nuclear energy, climate crisis and climate solution And rethinking nuclear as a climate solution very interesting. My name is Isabella Arendt. I run for parliament for the conservative party in Denmark. I have been active in politics for 15 years. I have always been interested in climate change. The first political thing I remember is back with Al Gore’s video ‘Convenient truth’. I was so interested in this more scientific approach to the climate debate. I have seen the “No to Nuclear power”, yellow stickers with a red sun and all these demonstrations and things debating whether or not climate change is real, whether or not it’s human-caused, and whether or not we should do something about it. Luckily we are not having that discussion anymore.

I was so interested when it became more scientific, and we can measure and do something about it. Throughout my political career, I kept this interest in the very scientific approach.It is not that easy in a political context. Often in my debates and election campaigns, people consider it too geeky, not relevant or leave it to engineers or other people who have to implement it. Once I found it interesting, I do not have a degree in physics, math, engineering or anything in natural science, I just asked a bunch of questions for 15 years. I find it interesting to know how a nuclear plant works, how hydrogen cars work, and how biodegradable systems function. How to make protein out of seashells, grass, things like that. I always knocked on doors everywhere. “This seems interesting. This seems like a good solution. Tell me how it works, not like if it works.”

To make good laws, as a politician, it’s quite important to understand how these technologies work and what the benefits and problems are. There are no problem-free energy sources in the world. I don’t believe things like that exist. We have to choose the energy source that is most efficient compared to the problems. 5-6 years ago, I ran into nuclear discussions with 4th generation reactor with molten salt. I pictured huge silos in the landscape. I was just very curious. Luckily, we had some good scientists and engineers in Denmark who were willing to teach. I asked hundreds of questions in order to understand how it works. The more I learned, the more I thought it was a political solution.

And then, two years back, I was a leader of the Christian democratic party. I introduced this as the official climate policy of the party. It’s not an official solution for a conservative party yet. It might be. There is a movement. When I started, everyone was skeptical, and some were going mad. And you know we would have glow-in-the-dark children, and everyone would die. Now I actually experience most people I talk with about nuclear energy and the climate crisis. No matter their age, gender, educational background or any demographics, they are either positive or curious. I think that’s quite an important step in just two years. 

My name is Isabella Arendt. I run for parliament for the conservative party in Denmark. I was so interested when it became more scientific, and we can measure and do something about it.

…interesting to know how a nuclear plant works, how hydrogen cars work, how biodegradable systems function and how to make protein out of seashells, grass… To make good laws, as a politician, it’s important to understand how these technologies work and what the benefits and problems are. There are no problem-free energy sources in the world. We have to choose the energy source that is most efficient compared to the problems.

Isabella: I always thought that wind and solar power were not enough. The more I studied, the more I studied things such as Power to X* and Hydrogen technologies, things like that. I discovered it doesn’t cut it. I had some conversations with the shipping industry, the air traffic industries, and the heavy transport of goods. For example, the Danish company Maersk (shipping company) said these energy islands** the government had proposed if they are to cover only their fleet. They need 50 of them. Just to cover their fleet. Of course, Maersk is a huge piece in the global industries. But it’s to put it into perspective. Most people say maybe we need to build more energy islands. I thought there had to be a more efficient energy source. Because this can’t be the answer, considering the amount of concrete, sand, steel and other resources used to build the artificial islands. There has to be something smarter than this. This is only one shipping fleet. What about Tokyo, Seattle, New York or Jakarta? All of these huge cities need more and more energy. This can’t be as good as it gets. When I started asking these questions, someone told me that these 4th generation nuclear plants*** were some of the solutions I was searching for.

* Power to X is an energy conversion technology that converts and stores renewable energy power in the form of heat, gas, hydrogen, and other synthetic fuels.

** The Energy Island is an artificial island which will connect and distribute power from the surrounding offshore wind farms.

*** 4th Generation Nuclear plants are designed with improved safety, sustainability, efficiency and cost. 

“If the Danish shipping company Maersk are to cover only their fleet by the energy islands danish government had proposed, they need 50 of them.”

What is the best way to decarbonize society by solar, wind, nuclear, or another energy source in order to tackle climate change?

Isabella: It’s gonna be a mix, especially on a global scale. In Denmark, there is some debate about whether or not we can use solar, wind and maybe some hydrogen for storage. I doubt it. But if it’s enough, fine. It doesn’t matter which green energy source we use. Political debates have been a battle between energy sources instead of a battle for green energy. I have been accused of being against wind and solar power because I also advocate nuclear energy. In Denmark, we have wind power that makes sense. Let’s build solar power where it makes sense. It’s a lot cheaper for households or villages to buy solar power, so of course, they’re gonna do that. If you have an empty field where nothing can grow, it’s too sandy and too muddy, then build solar power to run their houses. But I think if we are actually gonna succeed in making enough hydrogen and produce hydrogen not only for the heavy goods transportation but also for the shipping and airline industries, I haven’t found any other solution than nuclear energy that’s gonna do the job. But if some mad scientist comes to me with a solution that’s not nuclear, fine.

It’s a political task to set the guidelines and not to pick the winner. It has to be cost-efficient, it has to be green energy and do limited damage to the area around it. Not zero damage, because it is never possible. It has to use as few natural resources per produced energy as possible. So we have to line up some criteria. Whichever technology lives up to that at the best point in the given scenario is gonna be the winner. Whether nuclear power plants will make sense in Denmark compared to energy islands? I think they will be in industrial areas. But Globally, I do not doubt that nuclear power is gonna be the most efficient energy source. 

“Political debates have been a battle between energy sources instead of a battle for green energy. It’s a political task to set the guidelines and not to pick the winner. It has to be cost-efficient, green energy, and do limited damage to the area. Not zero damage, because it is never possible. It has to use as few natural resources per produced energy as possible.”

Thore: One of the problems is some politicians say Nuclear is not green energy. The concept of green energy is misused. Green energy should be renamed to what has zero co2 emissions and limited land use.

Isabella: I think so too. Because I have met people who say they want problem-free energy. It doesn’t exist, even biking will make your back hurt if you do it too much. There is no such thing as problem-free energy. Especially not on a bigger scale. Even if we build windmills and solar plants, they are gonna use natural resources and rare metals. They are gonna need mining, which is bad for the environment. But I think it’s moving. I have heard more of my colleagues in all different parties in Denmark say that we need to take these natural elements into account as well. We have all heard about these weird projects that are good, but then some rare species of frog live in a puddle somewhere. And we have to stop the building of them or the Baltic pipelines Northstrea that could have saved us from Russian gas. Slowly we are getting to the point where it’s clear for both the population and politicians we have to sacrifice something. We can’t both get rid of Russian gas and save the frog. We have to choose. 

Illustration of The Baltic pipelines is from https://www.baltic-pipe.eu/news/, www.saipem.com Climate activists criticized the building of Baltic pipelines due to its investment in fossil fuels which locks the future into continued use of fossil gas. However, it is currently justified after the Ukraine war to get rid of Russian gas. 

I don’t know if you have followed the debate about Lynetteholmen.* It’s a huge topic how much concrete is used. I haven’t seen this in political debate before. Not to this extent where you actually say no to huge infrastructure projects like this(Lynetteholmen) or Kattegatforbindelsen**, in consideration not just of nature but also of nature’s resources. So I think it’s moving quite fast these years. I try to stay optimistic.

* Lynetteholmen is a planned artificial island next to Copenhagen. When finished in 2070, the island should house 35’000 people and protect Copenhagen against the rising sea.

** Kattegatforbindelsen is a new bridge construction plan, which connects Århus directly to Sjælland.

I try to preach the idea that there is no such thing as damage-free energy, because as long as we look for damage-free energy, we are not gonna opt for the right option. I also hear a lot of people say no to nuclear energy because they think the status quo is not dangerous. I spent a lot of time telling people that the status quo is killing people. This is not a good stage to stay in and what we are doing today is not without risk either. So we have to pick the risk we want to live in…So there is still some territory to gain in order to make people understand that today is a burning platform. 

Illustration of Lynetteholmen by Lynnetteholmen and By&Havn. This case is the first-time people to argue that not only the effect of the construction on the environment and also how much resources are exploited to build such a huge amount of concrete. 

“There is no such thing as problem-free energy. Even if we build windmills and solar plants, they use natural resources, rare metals, and need mining… We need to take these natural elements into account as well… This is not a good stage to stay in and what we are doing today is not without risk either…today is a burning platform.”

Thore: In Europe, there are lots of green parties. Traditionally the greens were against nuclear energy. However, recently in Finland, the Finish green party has changed their opinion. Have you seen this movement, and how do you understand it? In Finland, the Greens officially announced that they support nuclear power. But in Germany, the Greens are still against nuclear power. So why this difference?

Isabella: Well, I saw that as well. In this debate, there has been this paradox, politicians on the right wing have been accused of not caring about the climate. But all over Europe, it’s the right-wing parties that advocate nuclear energy. The ‘black parties’ in public opinion are actually the ones with real solutions, and the so-called green parties on the leftwing are the ones not advocating actual solutions. The war in Ukraine is gonna change some of it. Just recently, Germany decided not to close their three remaining nuclear plants. I hope they are gonna reopen the other three nuclear plants also as well. Germany is not a country known for moving fast. So it’s baby steps. I think something is changing.

I saw it in the French presidential campaign in the spring. France is one of the huge actors in the nuclear debate because they have so many, and they have had for years. Everyone in France thinks this is a great idea. It’s also moving people that Macron is one of the advocates of nuclear energy to get it into the green deal. In the debate on whether nuclear power is green or not, there are other national interests involved. I hope that the leftwing parties will take up nuclear energy. It will fit quite nicely into their narrative. I am the wrong person to ask why they don’t. It will be a while before the leftwing in Denmark is open to nuclear energy. They still believe that wind and solar power will do the trick. So I actually don’t know what the problem is.

Thore: I agree with this one. For me, it’s an important thing because my wife and I can be considered traditional leftwing voters. But I support nuclear power. I feel homeless in this political scene. I don’t know where to go. I have been asking a party like Momentum about their opinion about nuclear energy because their main theme is climate, so they should have some idea about it. But they were against it. I was confused about that.

Isabella: Also, Alternativet, Frie Grønne and Veganerne are very much against it.* They strongly oppose nuclear energy. Despite announcing them as the greenest party in Denmark. * Momentum, Alternativet, Frie Grønne and Veganerne are green parties in Denmark. Later, we had a talk with Grøn Alliance.

Thore: It feels hypocritical.

Isabella: You are not alone. I have talked to a lot of people when I was party leader who used to vote far left but opted for the Christian Democratic Party because of nuclear power. So it does actually move people across the spectrum because a lot of very active climate activists on the leftwing, if climate activism is their main reason to vote, then they are willing to move quite far on other issues in order to find someone who will talk positively about nuclear energy.

My best guess of an advocate of nuclear energy here in Denmark is an industry interest. For a normal working guy, average Joe, yeah, wind and solar might do the trick. If you are Maersk, Copenhagen Airport, DFDS or Ørsted, or some of these industries, it’s nowhere near enough. The leftwing aren’t paying attention to the industry’s interest. These are huge game changers in this climate reform with Green taxes,* such as Aalborg portland (concrete company). The leftwing solution was just to close it. Ok, then we are just not gonna give you any energy where a nuclear power plant at Aalborg Portland would have done the trick. It’s just not in their political scope of interest to care about what the industry needs. They haven’t seen the need for nuclear energy yet. 

“There has been this paradox…the ‘black parties’ in public opinion actually are the ones with real solutions, and the green parties on the leftwing are not advocating actual solutions. (For) a lot of very active climate activists on the leftwing, if climate activism is their main reason to vote, then they are willing to move quite far (right) on other issues”

Thore: What is your opinion on putting a high tax on Carbon in Denmark?

Isabella: I hope this model that danish politicians made right before this summer holiday is, not perfect, but in the right step and direction. I don’t think any other model they could have come up with would be perfect. This is a very new terrain. I hope that the 50-55 plan in the European Union* will look this way. If we should have a climate tax to get into the European market. order to sell things in the EU mark, at least consider the idea that countries exporting have to have some sort of climate plan and reduction plan.

* The 50-55 EU Plan is both short and long-term goals cutting emissions by at least 55% by 2030 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/

An unionised carbon tax like the Danish one is the way to go. The leftwing demand for it being totally equal is not realistic. The reductions we make are much better than the ones on paper. There is a risk here in the case of Aalborg Portland or with the fishing industry. The fishing industry can not be taxed only in Denmark. Then they will buy fuel in the Netherlands or England. We can’t stop that, and we will lose. I like the idea, but we have to make sure not to say no to something good because we hope for something perfect. We don’t have time in this age of climate chaos in the world to hope for perfection. We need to make do with good enough and improve on the models as we go along. Every 3, 4, 5 years we have to improve the models. If we want to make a perfect model on day one, it will take ten years to figure out. We will end up wasting ten years where we could have changed something. That takes up a lot of time in the political debate.

Some climate activists say we want all or nothing. Like in the Glasgow meeting and Greta Thunberg and other people like that. It’s an all-or-nothing situation. If you ask for perfection, all or nothing, then you will get nothing because you can never get everything. I would rather do something than nothing. Should you have an Idealistic approach or a pragmatic approach to these negotiations? Historically speaking, leftwing has been more idealistic on the climate agenda, and the rightwing has been more pragmatic. The pragmatic solutions are what we need right now. Because that’s the way, we get things done.

Denmark Green Tax Reform* this year and the agricultural reform last year are not too idealistic. It has to be something other countries can look at and want. If we build something that only exists in a fairytale land where we have a huge Scandinavian welfare state, then the Germans, the French, the Greeks, the Japanese or the Americans, will never opt for this option. I think it’s important as a laboratory in these climate solutions that we make something that is exportable to other countries. Make them see that this is what they can actually do. And it has to be industry-friendly to persuade other countries to go this way. If we lead so far ahead and no one is following, then we are actually not leading. If we do it right, some European countries will come up with the same solutions. A bilateral collaboration at first could eventually become a transnational collaboration. 

Ran: You said that right-wing parties in Europe have more pragmatic solutions for climate. And you are more listening to the industries which actually affect a lot climate in regards to their scale of co2 release. I can see the challenge for right-wing politicians, for example, in Korea, right-wing parties are known for pursuing never-ending economic growth. So when they talk about nuclear energy, many people oppose and perceive it as serving neverending economic growth than tackling climate change. In this regard, do you still believe that the current industry should be maintained or grow more?

Isabella: It’s a good question. I will answer first and give another perspective. First of all, it has to grow. We need more money for welfare. That’s very simple political maths. If the industry isn’t growing at least 2-3 % per year, we have to make welfare cuts. No one wants that. That’s how the capitalist economy that rules Europe and most of the world works. It’s laws of physics. It has to grow. An important solution or theme in the climate debate is that it’s not whether or not industry grows. It’s whether or not it grows green. A lot of the industries in Denmark, for example, Novo Nordisk, have grown hugely in the past decades, but their carbon footprint hasn’t. So the trick is to find a way to decouple these two parameters. In the industrialised up to 90’ies, or someone says we still do it, then economic growth equalled the use of a lot of natural resources. It doesn’t have to be this way.

What we have to figure out is that these two don’t have to go along just because they have done so for more than 100 years. A lot of things in the century before, like slavery and economic growth, were inseparable. We figured out a way to decouple that. So It’s possible with Green Energy sources, recycling of materials and circular economic thinking, having industries still growing, getting money for welfare, without damaging the planet more than is necessary or more than the planet can sustain.

First of all, it’s important to be able to maintain our economies here in the rich part of the world. But it’s important to be able to grow a lot of countries’ economies. In Denmark, we could do with less use of everything. We would be fine. Most of the world, with most of the people inhabiting this planet, needs to grow their economies in order to survive. It’s rather spoiled for some left-wing politicians to say we must stop global economic growth. It’s so easy to say in a country like mine where I have everything. I don’t think everyone in Sub Saharan Africa will agree with this. It should be a left-wing project on the global scale to advocate economic growth because that’s gonna get people out of poverty. We just have to figure out a way to do it without damaging the climate.

Another point is that in most countries, the right-wing consists of only liberals who advocate the free market. In Denmark and Europe, we have two different ideologies. Conservatives advocate culture, family values, etc to conserve and take care of what we have, including nature and climate. In most countries and the USA, they call themselves conservative republicans, but they are not. You only have liberals, so you lack this right-wing ideology that wants to conserve some of the things we’ve given. Centuries back, they’ve said to conserve what the god gave us. They were the front runners of the Green agenda long before the left wing up to this agenda, 60 years back or something. 

“(Economic growth) is possible with Green Energy sources, recycling of materials and circular economic thinking, having industries still growing, getting money for welfare, without damaging the planet more than is necessary or more than the planet can sustain… Conservatives advocate culture, family values, etc to conserve and take care of what we have, including nature and climate. In most countries and the USA, you only have liberals, so you lack this right-wing ideology that wants to conserve some of the things we’ve given.”

Ran: About your talk about Economic growth, it was a new concept of an economy that I haven’t thought of before. You mentioned the Circular economy, and I want to know more about examples. Some people say we experience climate change because of human exceptionalism. The idea is that humans are the center of his planet. We should learn from this experience and withdraw our power on this planet. In that regard, Thore also talks about rewilding. What do you think about these?

Isabella: I do believe that humans are the center of this planet. That’s the reason we exist. Not in a way that we exploit it, but in a way, strive for it and regrow it. Humans are the only species that can think and invent. So the planet needs us to take back the damage we’ve done. If we just let it die or let it grow. I don’t think it’s enough. We would not meet our climate target if we do not actually do something. I think some of the rewilding projects’ ideas are good. I don’t think we haven’t reached the right way to do it in Denmark. I’ve never understood the idea of rewilding behind the fence in Denmark. I don’t consider caged animals to be free and wild. So I think we need to focus on the future where humans are the primary focus of the planet. But not just one generation of human or egocentric ideas of humans. But if I want to preserve this planet for my grandchildren, then I need to consider how I live today. And they are still humans. So humans are still the center of the purpose of the planet, not only for my satisfaction.

Ran: I think you are very brave to say humans are the center of the planet. I agree and, at the same time, do not agree. Following Post Humanism debates, some philosophers said that humans are a combination of human and non-human because we already have a lot of bacteria inside of our bodies. If I imagine human already includes non-human, your idea is perceived as humans, and non-humans are both centered. I lastly want to emphasize Thore’s idea that the reason why we should give more space to nature is that you believe…

Thore: I believe that our planet has the ability to cure and heal itself. But to do that, it needs space to do it. That’s the problem of humans these days that we are taking all the space from the planet. It’s a theory called Gaia theory by the scientist James Lovelock. I like that you have the care for children and future generations, because when you say that it’s very different. One of the problems of society today is that we only think about now, not about the future. If we implement this care, many current problems could be avoided. 

I do believe that humans are the center of this planet… not in a way that we exploit it, but in a way, strive for it and regrow it. The planet needs us to take back the damage we’ve done.

We need to focus on the future where humans are the primary focus of the planet, not just one generation of humans or egocentric ideas of humans. But if I want to preserve this planet for my grandchildren, then I need to consider how I live today.

Ran & Thore: It was really interesting to talk with you, and it enlarged our views. Thanks for your time. It was nice to meet you.

Isabella: Nice to meet you too.