Mr Blair is finally starting to realise and admit that Global Warming is rapidly damaging our environment; some scientists have startling estimations on how quickly the polar ice caps could disappear if the right things aren’t done. Fast. I have spent a lot of time researching the possible problems and benefits of nuclear and renewable energy. This article will shoot Mr Blair’s reasoning down in wood-burning flames, and expose it to be (self-confessed) foolishness.
The first thing wrong with Mr Blair’s announcement was its timing. Normally subjects of an on-going enquiry or report, are met by MP’s either side of the house with a comment like: “It would be foolish of me to talk about that just yet, lets just wait and see what the report says.” or something to that effect. In which case Blair, by making the announcement to predominantly back nuclear over renewable energy on Tuesday night, around two months before the report into our energy shortfalls is due to be published, made a bigger fool of himself than when he said Saddam Hussein could launch a missile strike; using non-existent WMD’s in less than 45 minutes.
There is another similarity with this announcement and his handling over our part in the Iraq war: his eagerness to get plans into effect before anyone gets the change to mount a suitable opposition. Supported by the fact there will be not be a separate white paper on the nuclear plans following the report, meaning no new legislation or a chance for backbenchers to leave him high and dry again. In other words, he had a brief look at an unfinished report and did what he wanted anyway, just like Iraq, except he never sexed the energy report up.
If I were a gambling man, I would bet money that the energy review makes far different suggestions than Tony Blair’s announcement, which has already stirred up a lot of opposition. Not just from opposing M.P’s, the green community or some of his backbenchers, but based on the people I have spoken to a large quantity of the British public. As well as rightly so, raising many questions both from those opposed to the nuclear plans and those supporting them.
The questions and opposition mainly regard the lack of plans for disposing of the highly radioactive waste, which is dangerous for many years after it is used. As the industry says the new plants can be fully functional by 2017, we need evidence that plans will be in place for dealing with much larger quantities of radioactive waste by 2017. Also although much less, nuclear power plants still expel Co2 into the atmosphere and if Blair's plans are carried through will only generate 40% of the UK’s power, therefore, if Blair doesn’t wake up to the potential of renewable energy over nuclear he won’t get much nearer to our Co2 emission target. As well as increasing the number of terrorist's, top potential targets. Blair’s reasoning for choosing Nuclear over renewable was there being many technical difficulties with renewable power, i.e. wind farms, also stating that legislation would be needed to speed up planning permission for such projects in order to further subsidise nuclear energy.
Technical problems maybe, but I know of many successful renewable energy ventures and many major power companies now stating high percentages of the energy they supply comes as coming from renewable sources, with estimations on higher renewable percentages in the near future. In most cases, these companies are doing their own work to develop or expand renewable energy quotas. This shows that they are aware the public is becoming increasingly concerned about climate change, so why isn’t Tony Blair. Regarding the new legislation to speed up planning permission, his announcement made the problem worse. Obtaining planning permission for wind-farms for example is as Blair said, often a slow process. Generally, because large numbers of the public, who, in the main are ignorant of the benefits of renewable energy and the dangers of climate change, mount objections to the proposals largely on the grounds they destroy the scenery. They won’t change their minds, if the PM with all his think tanks doesn’t see renewable energy as the best way forward.
In closing, Tony Blair’s announcement of expanding nuclear power supposedly addressed two of Britain’s current problems, energy security and Co2 emissions. It addressed neither. If more of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power plants, it will solve our immediate energy security problem but only temporarily, as we all know nuclear plants can only be used safely for around two decades. As for the CO2 emissions Blair going nuclear baffles me even more, a larger percentage of energy coming from more nuclear power plants; reducing CO2 emissions slightly and therefore slowing global warming, but only slightly and not forever. As well as adding the environmental problem of increased radioactive waste, which has to be disposed of safely, nobody yet (I don’t think even the PM) knows how or where. I am sure opposition on disposal sites will prove to be another stored problem.
Whereas mounting a campaign informing the public how immediate and dangerous climate change is and urging their support for renewable energy, alongside legislation to speed up planning permission for wind-farms and such, would I feel, have been a much better solution for Britain and the environment.
There is another similarity with this announcement and his handling over our part in the Iraq war: his eagerness to get plans into effect before anyone gets the change to mount a suitable opposition. Supported by the fact there will be not be a separate white paper on the nuclear plans following the report, meaning no new legislation or a chance for backbenchers to leave him high and dry again. In other words, he had a brief look at an unfinished report and did what he wanted anyway, just like Iraq, except he never sexed the energy report up.
If I were a gambling man, I would bet money that the energy review makes far different suggestions than Tony Blair’s announcement, which has already stirred up a lot of opposition. Not just from opposing M.P’s, the green community or some of his backbenchers, but based on the people I have spoken to a large quantity of the British public. As well as rightly so, raising many questions both from those opposed to the nuclear plans and those supporting them.
The questions and opposition mainly regard the lack of plans for disposing of the highly radioactive waste, which is dangerous for many years after it is used. As the industry says the new plants can be fully functional by 2017, we need evidence that plans will be in place for dealing with much larger quantities of radioactive waste by 2017. Also although much less, nuclear power plants still expel Co2 into the atmosphere and if Blair's plans are carried through will only generate 40% of the UK’s power, therefore, if Blair doesn’t wake up to the potential of renewable energy over nuclear he won’t get much nearer to our Co2 emission target. As well as increasing the number of terrorist's, top potential targets. Blair’s reasoning for choosing Nuclear over renewable was there being many technical difficulties with renewable power, i.e. wind farms, also stating that legislation would be needed to speed up planning permission for such projects in order to further subsidise nuclear energy.
Technical problems maybe, but I know of many successful renewable energy ventures and many major power companies now stating high percentages of the energy they supply comes as coming from renewable sources, with estimations on higher renewable percentages in the near future. In most cases, these companies are doing their own work to develop or expand renewable energy quotas. This shows that they are aware the public is becoming increasingly concerned about climate change, so why isn’t Tony Blair. Regarding the new legislation to speed up planning permission, his announcement made the problem worse. Obtaining planning permission for wind-farms for example is as Blair said, often a slow process. Generally, because large numbers of the public, who, in the main are ignorant of the benefits of renewable energy and the dangers of climate change, mount objections to the proposals largely on the grounds they destroy the scenery. They won’t change their minds, if the PM with all his think tanks doesn’t see renewable energy as the best way forward.
In closing, Tony Blair’s announcement of expanding nuclear power supposedly addressed two of Britain’s current problems, energy security and Co2 emissions. It addressed neither. If more of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power plants, it will solve our immediate energy security problem but only temporarily, as we all know nuclear plants can only be used safely for around two decades. As for the CO2 emissions Blair going nuclear baffles me even more, a larger percentage of energy coming from more nuclear power plants; reducing CO2 emissions slightly and therefore slowing global warming, but only slightly and not forever. As well as adding the environmental problem of increased radioactive waste, which has to be disposed of safely, nobody yet (I don’t think even the PM) knows how or where. I am sure opposition on disposal sites will prove to be another stored problem.
Whereas mounting a campaign informing the public how immediate and dangerous climate change is and urging their support for renewable energy, alongside legislation to speed up planning permission for wind-farms and such, would I feel, have been a much better solution for Britain and the environment.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Will Tony Blair's 'legacy' be 250,000 years of radioactive pollution?
09.06.2006 09:51
The appaling record of human negligence in the nuclear industry should be enough to put anyone off, even the Prime Minister, despite how much he wants to be remembered.
List of nuclear accidents + links to other info:
schmoo
Homepage:
http://www.schmoontherun.blogspot.com
Iraqs heritage, courtesy of Bush/Blair and many others
12.06.2006 21:15
More than 5000 depleted uranium missile strikes, countless bullets, shrapnel from armoured vehicles ..... Iraq is littered with over-all many thousands of tons of DU material, ranging from the fine areosol impact particulates, to unexploded munitions.
Even if the US/UK and other occupiers left tomorrow, the legacy , of that unrmarked crime, in the form of 'nuclear power', assuries the Iraqi people a manifest sense of horror for many lifetimes, illness, disease, truama.
A collosal human tragedy requires that all those implicated in it crime be made accountable. Thus we are witnessing a holocaust underway, and it's active elements must be stopped if we are to remain in touch with our human spirit, dignity and power.
Impeach ALL of them!
Better still turn ours back on the system and turn off the TV, talk to our neighbours, let's all get into gardening and growing food, talk to our councils, talk to other people doing the same, learning can be shared and groups can learn faster. Rebuild grass-roots human connections, person to person and them impeach them!
No, In fact, impeaching the vile lot who sanctioned this and other current wars ought to be the first step in building the connections. Get the nutters out of the way.
Yay! Impeach ALL of them.!
...... and take a deep breath and re-organise as independently minded humane people living in congruent groups, from and in many cultures, modern and ancient, on a planet that we now recognise has organised a perfect environment for enjoying the experience of being a physical being alive as part of a community, one we realise is now worldwide. Humanity.
Given that 99.9999% of unhappiness is attributible to human beings missing the crucial point I just made about the perfection of this planet, it stands to reason, I mean it follows nature-logic that we are designed for a happy experience of life, just like a tree or any other living being.. Thus we miss the crucial point of our existence ... and the good news is that it is a problem that can be solved.
Because it is only a belief system that obscures geniune reality - and the belief system is failing to deal with the problems it is creating. Better to impeach the lot of 'em, and to take 5, you know, like rest up a bit - I mean to do it would take a few years, lots of court business - great for TV, people would be interested in the detail especially if it turned out that their own local councillors were also implicated. It would create loads of job share oppurtunities in local governnance, spread the money around the community and the youth.
Nuremburg declared that 'following orders' was no excuse for partaking in a warcrime.
So, US/UK Military Invasion of Iraq is a war crime. Many war-crimes were committed within that invasion.
The Occupation Of Iraq is a War Crime, and many war-crimes are reportedly occurring, committed by occupation forces or their proxies, in this occupation.
It is nuclear war-crime. Depleted uranium munitions to the tune of over 400,000 strikes have layerd parts of Iraq with radioactive litter ranging from areosol particules to shrapnel and unexploded munitions. A carnage guaranteed for many generations.
Nucear power is a dodgily justified front for nucelar weapons tech. It helps make Nuclear weapons seem ok, if you get a little leccy outta it, and as long as there's no accidents so bad they can't be hid! whay hay! Nasty Pr people. Bill Hicks was right..
Stop all nuke now!
corneilius
Homepage:
http://www.corneilius,net
articles
17.06.2006 18:23
I am currently cleaning the Scotland newswire, and have to say I have nearly hidden yoru article, as it is no report about an action, but a personal opinion, which you have already expressed on your blog. It only stays up because you are based in Scotland. But it would be really nice, if you could in future post your personal opinion on your blog only, and any direct action/protest reports here or on the new Indymedia Scotland website.
Thanks a lot!
ab