Page - 212 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

3. Debating sustainability In the classification of the arguments pertaining to sustainability, we proceeded from the definition given at the preamble of the Hungarian National Strategy: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ (Ministry of National Development 2012; United Nations General Assembly 1987). In our interpretation, the concern for future generations is an ethical issue, and therefore we categorised the arguments for sustainability under the topos of ethics. In a close reading of the arguments about sustainability in the actors’ discourses, we firstly differentiated between those that explicitly mentioned the word and those that did not but referenced the effect on the future or future generations. Secondly, we made a distinction between arguments that appeared in the text separately and those that were tied to other topics, such as the economic or the environmental aspects of the expansion. The results show that the Hungarian Government only employed arguments in favour of the expansion that explicitly included the word ‘sustainability’ (“with the expansion of Paks nuclear power plant Hungary opted for a sustainable energy source”) and did not refer to future generations. Conversely, LMP, Greenpeace and Energy Club predominantly opposed the expansion with arguments invoking the future (“the case of the planned construction affects the whole population and also the next generation”). The Hungarian Academy of Sciences presented a varied argumentation in terms of referencing sustainability and future generations, as well as linking sustainability to another topic (“nuclear energy industry is currently not sustainable [...] however, if we use every uranium isotope, the resources would last for at least 10 or maybe 100 thousand years”) When the actors who oppose the expansion specify (un)sustainability, there is rarely any mention of other topics. However, when discussing the consequences future generations will need to bear, a variety of topics are also present in the proximity of the identified arguments. Examples include: ● “the decision which has an impact on our grandchildren risks the country’s sovereignty” (LMP) ● “this new regulation gives the green light to an energy source which is a threat to the country in the next 60-70 years” (Greenpeace) ● “it is not just us who will pay the cost of the new reactors, but our children and also our grandchildren, furthermore, with interests” (Energy Club) Although the Government would not deny that RES are, in some respect, sustainable, they only employed ‘sustainability’ in favour of the new nuclear reactors. In our research material which only discussed renewables in relation to the expansion, we could not identify any arguments about RES in the texts of the Government and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The argumentation of Greenpeace for RES was solely about sustainability and never about future generations, furthermore, they did not make any references to the other topics of the issue. It is true for LMP and Energy Club as well that arguments about sustainability and future generations appeared both with and without other topics: 212