Responding to today's announcement that the energy white paper will be delayed after the High Court ruled last week that the government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was unlawful, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Emma Gibson said:
"The government should go back to their findings in the 2003 energy white paper, that rejected nuclear power and backed energy efficiency and renewables. If the government had followed its 2003 words with effective actions, we'd have made much more progress in tackling climate change today.
"Greenpeace would welcome a new white paper that gave extra support to the real solutions, such as energy efficiency, decentralised energy and renewables.
"Nuclear is a separate issue and a total distraction to the real solutions. The government must not include nuclear in any white paper until after fully and properly consulting the public on this dangerous red herring.
"The High Court decision gives the government another opportunity to ditch nuclear power once and for all and concentrate on tackling climate change with effective solutions.
"The government have said they're going to make a decision on nuclear power in the autumn. This gives them less than six months to run the fullest consultation, consider all the evidence and reach an informed conclusion. Meanwhile, Blair says that his attitude to nuclear power hasn't changed. This strongly suggests that, yet again, they've already made their mind up before rushing into another sham consultation."
The government's own Sustainable Development Commission says that the five major disadvantages of nuclear power are:
- Long-term waste - no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste.
- Cost - the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there's a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab.
- Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.
- Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that's required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.
- International security - if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.
ENDS
GREENPEACE PRESS OFFICE -- 020 7865 8255.
NOTES:
In 2003 at the announcement of the energy white paper, Patricia Hewitt said that:
"If we achieve a step change in both energy efficiency and renewables we will be able beyond 2020 to move to 2050 without the need for a generation of nuclear power stations..."[1]
"Energy efficiency is by far the cheapest and simplest way of meeting all our policy goals in this area."[2]
"It would have been foolish to announce...that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment in both energy efficiency and renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now."[3]
[1] "Five years for green power to prove its worth: Ministers throw down gauntlet on alternative to nuclear comeback", by David Gow, Tuesday February 25, 2003; The Guardian
[2] Hansard; 20 March 2003 : Column 1071
[3] Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32
