Anna Deplazes Zemp, you studied molecular biology, obtained a doctorate in biochemistry and then changed course to study philosophy, specialising in ethics. Since 2016, you have been a member of the Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Board, which advises the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications on the site selection process for a deep geological repository. What is the connection between ethics and a repository?
A deep geological repository is a technological project – and technology is always linked to ethics. The repository is particularly interesting from an ethical perspective because, unlike many other technological projects, it is not just about maximising benefits. We don’t want to get as much out of it as possible, we want to minimise the damage. We have the waste, and now we have to put it somewhere. And then there is the temporal dimension. This project affects not only us, but also future generations. That is why it is not enough to ask everyone here whether they agree. We have to proceed in such a way that future generations will also be able to understand this project.
How do you define ethical guidelines? We could also say that it is unfair for one community to have to shoulder the entire burden while all the others get away scot-free.
Nobody would be in favour of making each inhabitant store a tin of radioactive waste in their cellar. You have to find ways to make what is unfair fair again. One possible approach is procedural justice, where you agree on how to make the decision – before you know the outcome of the decision. In this case, the whole of Switzerland is involved and an agreement is reached on how to determine the site for the deep geological repository. If everyone supports this procedure in principle, the decision will be fair.
How could the people in Stadel be compensated for this?
What we can say for sure is that the region deserves appreciation for the task it is taking on, and this appreciation can be shown in different ways. I think the rest of Switzerland should be better informed about this project. In many parts of the country, people don’t realise what the region is ready to do for all of us. There is a debate about financial settlements, but we must not forget that this decision does not only affect today’s residents, but also many future generations. Giving money to the current generation is not an adequate solution. According to surveys, the region accepts that it is the most suitable. This solidarity deserves positive recognition, which is at least as important as the financial aspect. Financial settlements, too, must be dealt out in such a way that several generations can benefit.
In 1993, an evaluation of a site in Wolfenschiessen showed that the approval rate was over 50 per cent. In a later study, economist Bruno S. Frey asked what the situation would be if the region were to receive a financial settlement – and approval fell by half. That was 30 years ago, would the results be the same today?
I would expect so, yes. The surveys show that a majority of the population perceives this task as a major responsibility. Someone has to take on and should also be willing to do so. Introducing the possibility of a financial settlement gives people the impression that they are in a position to turn it down. It is then no longer a question of responsibility and solidarity. Financial settlements should not be compensation for a service, but recognition.
You said earlier that this recognition does not yet exist sufficiently in Switzerland. Has the issue lost its topicality in view of other major problems? Does the long timescale also play a role?
Of course. This is not something that will happen today or tomorrow. Perhaps another reason is that the project is progressing well. There are few conflicts and controversies, so that people who live in parts of Switzerland that are not directly affected, are hardly aware of the issue.
But you are not unhappy that things are going so well?
On the contrary. This is a prime example of how well you can involve laypeople who have specific technical questions in a participatory process.
The broader the support, the more valuable it is from an ethical point of view?
Definitely, because it makes it more legitimate. In academic-technical discussions, we tend to think that many topics are too complicated for laypeople. I am very impressed by the technical level of discussion and argumentation at the regional conferences. This makes the decision-making process comprehensible and transparent for those affected. What is certainly also helpful is that we have been given time to make our decisions, which is not often the case.
Is it also an example of tangible ethics? The issue is not about abstract questions, but about something that affects people’s everyday lives.
I think that ethics should be tangible. We should deal with questions and decisions that affect everyday life. The idea of procedural justice, where everyone should be included, has been around for a long time. The deep geological repository is a good example of how theoretical ideas can be put into practice.
Are you more of a listener than a reader?
This interview was conducted as part of the third issue of the Magazine of the Century “500m+” from Nagra. Hannes Hug interviewed the protagonists at Nagra’s meeting point in Stadel – the community where the surface facility for the deep geological repository is to be constructed.
Ten exciting discussions provide new perspectives on the deep geological repository. You can listen to the Podcast of the Century (Jahrhundertpodcast, in German) on the website of The Magazine of the Century or wherever podcasts are available.
Can we learn any lessons from this process that could also be helpful in other areas?
One thing we could certainly learn is that before we start producing waste, we should know how to dispose of it. And that those who produce the waste must assume responsibility and not pass this task on to future generations on the grounds that the technology will have improved fifty or a hundred years from now. Someone has to assume responsibility for the issue today. On the one hand, because we produced the waste, and on the other, because we don’t know whether future generations will have the means to afford a repository that will be safe in the long term.
Your research project “People’s Place in Nature” explains that nature is more than just a resource. We are a part of it and shape it. How do you see this in the context of the deep geological repository?
When nature is seen as nothing but a resource, problems arise. We have now learned this in various contexts, not least in the case of nuclear energy. It is better to see people as part of nature and assign them a role. In view of the growing world population, this is a major challenge. The idea of our research project is to encourage people to think ahead, also with regard to energy consumption. We may find new sources, but perhaps we should fundamentally question our energy consumption and find ways to reduce it or at least not constantly increase it.
How do you explain this to someone who lives very detached from nature?
There is a risk that nature could be romanticised, leading to urban-rural conflicts. People from cities see beautiful images of nature but don’t experience it themselves. They should be given the opportunity to have a real relationship with nature, including its harsher and less forgiving sides. Nature can be cold, or wet, and sometimes even dangerous. Respecting nature also means accepting its dangers.
More interviews from the Magazine of the Century
“We place more faith in technology than in culture”
For Jeannie Schneider, there is no such thing as the future – there are futures. And these cannot be seen as a linear process, but as a zone full of opportunities where we can actively shape the interplay between technology, politics and society.
“A repository site should be designed to exude something cultish or religious”
How can we ensure that humans will not go near the repository even thousands of years from now? Archaeologist Andrea Schaer argues in favour of creating a monumental site. Just like those humans have erected time and again throughout history.
“I can understand how some people might dislike Benny Brennstab”
Thomas Meyer was the first cultural guest in Stadel. The author is a staunch opponent of nuclear power but, at the same time, he is fascinated by the repository project. This is a contradiction he has to bear.
So you have to endure the ambivalence of nature and see yourself as part of nature.
Yes, exactly. But you also have to accept that this relationship is not the same everywhere. In certain contexts, humans can and must control nature, but not everywhere. I don’t want an ant trail in my house, so I fight their invasion. But I don’t control them as much in the garden, where I leave the anthill, even if it is a bit of a nuisance. I even greatly enjoy seeing anthills in the forest. That is not contradictory. These are different stages of a differentiated relationship. I’m not nature’s boss everywhere, but I am in certain places that are important to me – my house, for example. That is where I call the shots. In my environmental ethics approach, I am allowed to do that.
The law stipulates the so-called retrievability of the radioactive waste. A monitoring phase of fifty years is foreseen before the final closure of the repository. Is this stipulation based on responsibility towards future generations?
You could say so, yes. But the incentive for this stipulation could also be practical, as there is a possibility that we might find a new technology to reuse the waste in fifty years’ time. In this case, retrievability would also make sense from a purely practical perspective. From an ethical perspective, however, the idea of retrievability is also important so that more generations are given a say in decisions pertaining to the repository. This also makes the decisions more broadly legitimised.
“We shoulder the responsibility for the years ahead. In this context, solidarity has not only a geographical dimension, but also a temporal one.”
Anna Deplazes Zemp discusses the ethical perspective on the responsibility that different generations take on.
But it’s not just an option, it’s an obligation.
Yes, the idea of this phase is also to “observe” and monitor the repository. This gives the generation in question a certain responsibility. For future generations, it is particularly important that they know exactly how and where we disposed of the waste. Should the decision be made to retrieve the waste 500 years from now, we will need to know where it is. Transparency and communication are needed to ensure that this knowledge is preserved.
We are not the only ones responsible for the waste – it has been produced for sixty years. How do you weight the responsibilities of individual generations?
In a way, yes, our generation has to bear the responsibility of our predecessors. Similar to what Stadel will do for Switzerland in geographical terms, our generation has to take on more than it caused itself. We shoulder the responsibility for the years ahead. In this context, solidarity has not only a geographical dimension, but also a temporal one.
To border on the heretical: do we bear any responsibility at all towards future generations?
Some people take the view that you do not have any responsibility towards people who do not yet exist. But I think we do have a responsibility – because we have a choice. We can choose whether we will let this waste sit outside somewhere or whether we will dispose of it safely in a deep geological repository. When you have a choice, you are also responsible for the decision. Even if you don’t know anything about these future generations.
What is the role of ethics in these issues?
Its task is to include other perspectives in the discussion, even controversial ones. It should give people a jolt and encourage them to think for themselves. We should all fundamentally ask ourselves: what do we really want? For example, there are amazing biotechnological processes such as the Crispr gene scissors, but for what do we want to use them? It has huge potential – but is also at risk of misuse. You should already critically ask yourself what you want to achieve with a technology and what you want to use it for while this technology is still in its development phase.
One last question that I ask everyone I interview: if you could leave a message in the planned deep geological repository, what would you write in your note?
Think about how to dispose of waste before you produce it.
Molecular biologist, biochemist and philosopher Anna Deplazes Zemp researches and lectures on the ethical and philosophical issues related to biology at the University of Zürich. Since 2016, she has been a member of the Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Board, which has been advising the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications on the site selection process for deep geological repositories since 2009.
Photos: Maurice Haas / Nagra
Similar articles
Can a “radiation-eating fungus” solve all our radioactive waste problems?
Chernobyl’s black fungus and frogs captivate scientists and fascinate the internet community. Numerous myths have grown up around the “Chernobyl fungus” –aided by false information and AI-generated images. But what is really behind the phenomenon?
Never a dull moment with Nagra
Uschi Züger-Fankhauser has seen Nagra reach numerous important milestones during her career, but she will never forget 19th November 2024.
9 (purported) alternatives to a deep geological repository
Why do we not just shoot the radioactive waste into space? The answer to this – and other outlandish ideas on how to get rid of our radioactive waste.