At a recent climate change event George Monbiot presented the thesis that we have to choose between climate change and nuclear power. Basically he argued that because it is unreasonable to believe that there will be sufficient public consent for massive reductions in energy consumption as well as wholesale changes in direction for the types of technology currently employed, then our only means of achieving the necessary carbon emission reductions in the timeframe required is to build new nuclear power plants. In fact he was emphatic about the case for an either or decision to the extent that he suggested that if he were faced with the choice of whether to sacrifice the lives of 2000 people to a nuclear accident or accept the consequences of climate change, he would choose the former.

Not being a scientist, I initially acquiesced into my usual position of saying that I am unilaterally against nuclear power, not for any technical reasons to do with understanding the science of fission and the production of carbon dioxide, but because I sense the immorality of exposing people to the kind of death and mutation which is apparent to any mortal human with the capacity for opening their eyes and observing the damage nuclear radiation has wrought on our planet. However it has since occurred to me that the nuclear industry lobby, among whom Mr. Monbiot is now numbered, is trying to make a case for new-build based on the spurious argument that there can only be a for or against choice with nuclear on one side and climate change on the other. Effectively nuclear power is being championed as the only possible solution to climate change.

Let us assume then that Monbiots hypothesis is correct that unless we reduce our carbon emissions by 90% in the next twenty five years then all life on the planet, save a few pigs, will be wiped out by the end of the century such as occurred in the archaeological period 250 million years ago whose name I cannot remember. Based on this assumption he suggests two further presumptions. Firstly we cannot expect, for reasons left unstated, that the majority of the worlds population will accept any dramatic decrease in consumption of energy or lifestyle. Secondly, given the state of current trends of energy consumption it is practically and economically unfeasible to implement any kind of remedial solutions which do not involve at least an interim period of new nuclear generating capacity. On these assumptions we are therefore faced with the only possible choice between the lesser of the two evils of nuclear proliferation or climatic extinctions. On this score Monbiot would appear to be a reasonable and compassionate human being by choosing to risk the permanent despoliation of the future of our planet for the sake of a short term fix to an inevitable breakdown of all of life as it is known.

But if one chooses to suggest that neither nuclear pollution on a grand scale nor the ultimate demise of the human race are acceptable substitutes for the evidently possible other choices available, then such reasonableness converts swiftly into the muddled and megalomaniac thinking it really is. Basically the flaw in this argument is that it starts from the assumption that humanity has an inalienable right to consume and pollute at the expense of future generations and other inhabitants of the planet. If such is accepted then a model can be constructed which fits this assertion. It is a kind of defining the problem according to the solution. The solution for the nuclear industry is continuing growth and consumption for the increasingly rich minority who control the worlds energy sources. Therefore their solution must be to prevent the immediate destruction of the planet from climate change by the fastest means which ensures the preservation of all the privileges of consumption for the few.

But if you base your solution on a model which claims that neither the quick fix nor the problem of global warming are worth the lifestyles which contribute to them, then you have a solution which insists that solutions must be found by other means. My point is that we must not let the insistence of the rich minority who wish to stay in power distort our perception of what is really at stake. The choice is not between nuclear power and climate change ‘Eco-geddon’ as they would like us to think; it is between climate change and the lifestyles of the rich and lazy technocratic class who believe they have the right to condemn the masses to a life of drudgery and pollution so they can continue to consume. Believe it or not this is the basis on which such appalling media pundits such as Monbiot claim their slice of the pie and attempt to manufacture ‘economic’ and ‘scientific’ answers to the modern problems created by the greedy rich people who pay his salary.

And for the record it does not take much imagination to realise that alternative sources of renewable and non-polluting power are readily available and perfectly within reach of a progressive economic vision. Even given Monbiots speculations on potential breakdown scenarios we have enough time to install sufficient alternative power supplies and efficiency measures to meet our demands, providing that we do not all cow-tow to these type of ignorant elitists. Nuclear power can only be used to generate electricity in a world where there are not only numerous other ways of doing this more efficiently, but also other ways of achieving the ends of modern electronic technology without the use of electricity. Other sources of fossil fuel will inevitably run out [except perhaps coal], so whatever the maths, renewable sources are practically as well as ethically preferable.