PowerSwitch

Nuclear power? Yes please...

Exclusive: leading greens join forces in a major U-turn.

Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today. The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide. They all take the view that the building of nuclear power stations is now imperative and that to delay the process with time-consuming public inquiries and legal challenges would seriously undermine Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

The four leading environmentalists who are now lobbying in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.

Mr Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until he resigned in 2005, has taken a vehemently anti-nuclear stance through out his career as an environmentalist. “My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons,” Mr Tindale said. “My change of mind wasn’t sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world,” he said . . .

The Herald - 23/02/09

We owe it to ourselves to abandon nuclear energy

I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources (Alf Young, The Herald, February 20), for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it because of the link between the civil nuclear power and the nuclear arms industry. Every advocate of civil nuclear power generation I have read, heard or met personally is either an advocate of nuclear weapons, nuclear defence policies and the so-called "nuclear deterrent", or, frankly, must be naive, and unaware or badly informed about this insidious linking of the civil and military aspects.

Article continues ...

I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources (Alf Young, The Herald, February 20), for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it

clv101 wrote:The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.

The Independent - 24/02/09

The Big Question: Does nuclear power now provide the answer to Britain’s energy needs?

Why are we asking this now?

Because as The Independent reported yesterday four of the country’s leading green activists have overcome a lifetime’s opposition to warn of the dire consequences of not building more nuclear power stations.

Article continues ...

The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.

DominicJ wrote:But land less than 1m above sea level is of no economic benefit to me, or a great many other people.

A 1m sea level rise will make some people poorer, it might even drag down the average(cant sea how to be honest), but it will also make some people richer.

"Any idea what it would do to the UK economy?"