Greenpeace is hereby making an initial formal complaint to the Market Research Standards Council. The complaint concerns public polling conducted by Opinion Leader Research in September 2007 at a number of deliberative public consultations on nuclear power. The polling constitutes an important part of the government consultation on nuclear power, ordered by Justice Sullivan in the High Court in February. A previous consultation was deemed unlawful due to its biased nature.
A more detailed complaint will follow. The following is a brief summary of areas where the code has been contravened. Many more examples will be included in a later Greenpeace complaint to be submitted in the near future.
Opinion Leader Research, as a ‘company partner' of the Market Research Society, is bound by the MRSC code of conduct.
This complaint is based on an analysis of the polling questions asked to members of the public at the deliberative meetings and the stimulus materials shown to the public in concert with the questions.
The polling questions used by OLR can be seen here.
Greenpeace notes point B.14 of the MRSC code of conduct, which dictates that members must take reasonable steps to ensure that the design and content of questionnaires are appropriate for the audience being researched; respondents are able to answer the questions in a way that reflects the view they want to express; that respondents are not led towards a particular answer; and that answers are capable of being interpreted in an unambiguous way.
Greenpeace also notes point 7 of the Principles of the Code, which states: ‘Market researchers will ensure that projects and activities are designed, carried out, reported and documented accurately, transparently, objectively and to appropriate quality.'
The statements people were asked to reply to, and the questions they answered, were as follows:
- Tackling climate change is a critical challenge for the UK
- Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to reducing the UK's CO2 emissions
- Ensuring a secure and reliable supply of energy is a critical challenge for the UK
- Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to providing the UK with secure and reliable energy supplies in the future
- How concerned are you about safety and security issues associated with nuclear power?
- How concerned are you about the creation of new nuclear waste?
- How satisfied are you with the Government's proposal to manage new nuclear waste in the same way as existing waste?
- How satisfied are you with the measures in place to minimise the safety and security risks associated with nuclear power?
Greenpeace notes that positive messages for nuclear are made as statements of fact (‘Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to reducing the UK's CO2 emissions') while negative issues for nuclear power required answers by degree, with the loaded term ‘satisfied' included in the question (‘How satisfied are you with the Government's proposal to manage new nuclear waste in the same way as existing waste?')
This complaint contends that OLR did not take reasonable steps to ensure that the design and content of the questionnaires were appropriate for the audience being researched; that respondents were not able to answer the questions in a way that reflected the view they wanted to express and that respondents were led towards a particular answer.
Greenpeace also believes the polling questions were not of ‘appropriate quality'.
The handouts and stimulus materials used by OLR to achieve the desired polling results are inaccurate in many respects, and as such OLR contravenes the necessity under point B.14 for members to take reasonable steps to ensure that the design and content of questionnaires are appropriate for the audience being researched and that respondents are not led towards a particular answer. The use of inaccurate stimulus material also means that point 7 of the Principles of the Code is contravened (‘market researchers will ensure that projects and activities are designed, carried out, reported and documented accurately, transparently, objectively and to appropriate quality.')
The stimulus material and handouts can be seen here.
Statements made as stimuli include:
- "In order for nuclear power to continue to be an option in our future energy mix to replace the capacity closing over the next two decades, a decision on whether energy companies should have the option of investing new nuclear power stations needs to be taken this year."
This is a subjective point made as a statement of fact, and is wholly unsubstantiated. The timeline is driven by political considerations, and many experts contend that a decision could be put off for many years. Neither of these realities is communicated, instead an opinion articulated by supporters of nuclear power is presented as fact.
- "Are there any conditions that you believe should be put in place before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations (for example restricting build to the vicinity of existing sites, or restricting build to approximately replacing the existing capacity)?"
- "Although nuclear would only make a relatively small contribution by 2020, because the first power stations will only have just started to become operational, it could have a significant contribution to meeting our long term C02 targets"
These statements are simply untrue. The first power stations will account for a reduction in the UK's CO2 of just 3.6%. This is a figure calculated by the government's own advisors at the Sustainable Development Commission. The government's longterm target is to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050. Scientists call for a 90% cut. Moreover, the contribution even longterm of nuclear power would be limited because stations could not be built fast enough. The government's own advisors (the SDC) state: "Assuming that we're talking primarily about gas-fired plants, then a replacement programme for our existing nuclear programme (at 10GW) would displace about 6.7 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) every year once all the plants were up and running. That's equal to around a 4% cut in annual CO2 emissions from 1990 levels."
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads//SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/IsNuclearTheAnswer.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1688034,00.html
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/toohottothandle.php
- "Some methods of generating electricity (like nuclear) deliver a constant supply which can cover the normal continuous level of demand, or base-load; others (like some renewables) have a variable output that depends on factors outside our control"
- "Nuclear power delivers a constant ‘baseload' of electricity on a large scale, helping to provide predictability and security of UK electricity supplies. Others have a variable output (like renewables)."
This is not true. Nuclear power does not provide continuous baseload as reactors are often offline. This reality ignored by the framers of the materials. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6949026.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6085258.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6897062.stm
- "The Government and energy companies have both learned lessons about waste management, which have helped to shape and accelerate plans for dealing with waste in the future."
This is a subjective point presented as fact. Environmentalists contend that no lessons have been learned. Certainly no solution to the waste problem has been found. The statement above appears designed to mislead the public into thinking that a solution has been found when it has not. Quite apart from the array of unanswered questions - such as how to identify a willing community or suitable site for the long term management of radioactive waste , deep geological disposal (the preferred option adopted by the Government) remains technically, scientifically and ethically uncertain and questionable. There are currently no operating disposal facilities anywhere in the world. This is quite aside from the fact that the UK only reprocessing facility at Sellafield has been non-operational for the last two years following an accident. Moreover the government's own consultation on waste management has yet to be concluded so quite how OLR can form a position on this is highly dubious.
- "On one hand, new nuclear build would increase the legacy of waste for future generations. On the other hand, not allowing new nuclear power stations could lead to higher CO2 emissions which would contribute to climate change and this would also affect future generations."
This is a fundamentally misleading statement because it proposes a false dichotomy (we can only power the country with nuclear power or fossil fuels). In reality environmentalists contend that not allowing nuclear power would free up billions of pounds (and political will) to develop renewables and decentralised energy generation that would slash emissions without creating waste. This credible viewpoint is ignored in the statement. The respected Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado concludes that for every pound spent on renewables you need to spend six pounds on nuclear to achieve the same carbon savings
- "According to the European Parliament, the risks associated with the transport of radioactive materials are low."
The pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency identifies transport as the most vulnerable area of nuclear security. The IAEA is the accepted world authority on nuclear threats, and the selected quoting of the European Parliament therefore misleads the public. See:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7487.pdf
- "The costs of waste and decommissioning aren't a very high proportion of total estimated nuclear generation costs"
The current costs of decommissioning existing reactors are estimated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to stand at £72bn. The costs of dealing with existing waste alone are estimated in the tens of billions. This constitutes a high proportion of generation costs.
- "Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green Alliance are also concerned about the risk of terrorism. They believe that building new nuclear power stations would increase the risk of terrorism and threaten national security. However, whilst some interested parties raise concerns, others, such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), British Energy and Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy, are all satisfied with the safety record of the nuclear industry in the UK. They highlight the rigorous safety and security regulatory regime that is in place. In fact the CBI and British Energy go as far as to say the safety record is exemplary. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) has also commented on the UK's mature and transparent regulatory system with highly trained, expert and experienced staff. These organisations also say that new designs and improved safety systems will make new nuclear power stations even safer, with fittings such as automatic shutdowns already being put in place."
The question is self-evidently one-sided and leading - and thus contravenes the code.
- "The Government estimates that our current nuclear power stations save between 5 and 13% of the UK's total CO2 emissions each year (assuming that the electricity would otherwise be generated from a mix of gas and coal-fired power stations)."
The government's own official advisors at the Sustainable Development Commission state: "Assuming that we're talking primarily about gas-fired plants, then a replacement programme for our existing nuclear programme (at 10GW) would displace about 6.7 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) every year once all the plants were up and running. That's equal to around a 4% cut in annual CO2 emissions from 1990 levels." OLR provides no evidence for the claim that the figure is 5-13%. It assumes coal generation will not be phased out, when the SDC assumes it will. For OLR to make this assumption misleads the public. See page 4:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/IsNuclearTheAnswer.pdf
Reference Materials were also used to conduct the polling. They can be seen here.
Statements included:
- "[Disadvantage of wind power is] Often requires construction of expensive overhead/underground wires to transport electricity to rest of UK."
Not contained here is the reality that nuclear power will also need expensive transmission wires to connect stations to the national grid. It will cost up to £1.4bn to upgrade Britain's electricity network if a new fleet of nuclear power stations is built, according the National Grid. See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/13/cnuke13.xml
- "[Advantage of nuclear is] It is substantially cheaper than wind generation (particularly off-shore)"
This is simply untrue and constitutes a flagrant breach of the code. The government's own Performance and Innovation Unit found that the cost of wind energy is in fact competitive with nuclear.
The government's own 2003 energy white paper concludes that nuclear power is more expensive than wind. From section 4.11 "Technologies such as onshore and offshore wind and biomass are potentially - after energy efficiency and alongside CHP - the most cost-effective ways of limiting carbon emissions in the longer term." This was not communicated to the public, which was therefore See:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf
It appears OLR has opted to merely ignore the huge waste and decommissioning costs involved in generating electricity by nuclear. The materials say merely that waste has "associated security risks and storage challenges" (Stakeholder materials - Reference Sheet 3: The main benefits and disadvantages of the different electricity sources).
ENDS
A more comprehensive complaint document detailing further breaches of the code is being prepared by Greenpeace researchers.
Complaint received from Jessica Duncan, Easter Daguise, nr Dunkeld, Perthshire.
