Nuked By Friend And Foe
George Monbiot | 21.02.2009 16:18 | COP15 Climate Summit 2009 | Analysis | Energy Crisis | Other Press
![](/img/extlink.gif)
It’s true that my position has changed. As the likely effects of climate change have become clearer, nuclear power, by comparison, has come to seem less threatening. Three things in particular changed my view:
- reading the technical report by the Finnish radioactive waste authority Posiva -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
- reading the Sustainable Development Commission’s paper on nuclear safety and security -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
- discovering that routine discharges of ionising radiation from coal plants are higher than from nuclear power stations -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
But I have not, as many people have suggested, gone nuclear. Instead, my position is that I will no longer oppose nuclear power if four conditions are met:
1. Its total emissions - from mine to dump - are taken into account
2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried
3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay
4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diveerted for military purposes.
None of them are insuperable. In the UK Condition 4 already applies: as long as chapter 7 of the Euratom Treaty is rigorously enforced -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
The big block is Condition 2. The most fundamental environmental principle, taught to every child before their third birthday, is that you don’t make a new mess until you have cleared up the old one. It seems astonishing to me that we could contemplate building a new generation of nuclear power stations when we still have no idea where the waste from existing nukes will be buried.
In these respects my position differs from Mark Lynas’s. He would impose fewer barriers to building new nuclear power stations -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
So why contemplate nuclear power at all? Why not, as Merrick suggests, decarbonise our economy solely through energy efficiency and renewable power?
In principle it could - just about - be done, as Mark Barrett at UCL -
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
So what should these be? My priorities are as follows:
1. Gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS).
2. Nuclear power.
3. Coal with CCS.
4. Gas without CCS.
5. Coal without CCS.
I have listed them, in other words, in terms of their impacts on both the climate and the wider environment. While gas comes top of the list, we cannot ignore the threats to its security of supply (though this could possibly be ameliorated by means of underground coal gasification).
All I am seeking to do is to be clear about the opportunities and obstacles. I realise that this will provoke hostile responses from almost everyone - including my friends - but we do our cause no favours by obscuring the choices we face.
George Monbiot
Homepage:
http:// www.monbiot.com
Additions
please stop spamming regions
23.02.2009 20:57
George: This appears to be the third time this month you have ticked 'Oxford' on an article with no obvious specific link to Oxford or the surrounding area:
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
If it carries on happening, we'll assume it's deliberate "region spamming" and future articles which are inappropriately sent to regions may be hidden altogether under the guidelines:
"Disruptive: Contributions by individuals who habitually publish above mentioned discouraged content. Posts where topical or regional selections disrupts the utility of the sub pages (ie spamming regional and topic selections)."
Cheers
an imcer
Comments
Display the following 2 comments