Blog

The nuclear divide

Matilda Lee | 22.07.11

They may have gone from dark green to glow-in-the-dark, but the environmentalists behind a series of well-publicised defections to the pro-nuclear camp have done more than just change their colours. They are forming a growing divide on an issue long central to the green cause.

Since the early days of the modern environmental movement, nuclear power has been considered dangerous, expensive as well as unnecessary- with most major green NGOs running long-standing and influential anti-nuclear campaigns, from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth down to the single-issue Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

But now many of those same people- from Executive Director or Greenpeace UK, Stephen Tindale, to Guardian writer George Monbiot and activists and writers Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand among others- are arguing that nuclear is green.

Whether grudgingly or wholeheartedly, they have turned the tables on this most green of green creeds. If we are really going to combat climate change, and at the same time fill the energy gap and meet national and European emissions targets, the argument goes, then nuclear power in the UK is inevitable, and yes, vital.

It is a debate is being played out publicly - in the media and within green circles. Now that the UK government has revived its nuclear power programme - easing planning restrictions, identifying sites, even offering what has been described as under-handed subsidies despite a campaign pledge not to do so - is it conceivable that the green movement, which once vilified the technology, will be its champions?

In the full article from the Ecologist, Matilda Lee outlines the arguments for and against going the nuclear route. Here are the highlights of the opposing views.

Mark Lynas, a campaigner who once espoused strong anti-nuclear beliefs, now suggests in his book The God Species that anti-nuclear campaigners have, ‘unwittingly helped release tens of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,' in stopping planned nuclear plants that were replaced by coal over the last four decades. Writer George Monbiot, now strongly in favour of nuclear, says the anti-nuclear stance is, ‘an irrational and outdated prejudice'.

Ex-Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale says he changed his mind on nuclear power due to two things. ‘The first was that it is not ideal but better than coal and because we are going to need a lot more electricity which we won't be able to provide using renewables and energy efficiency - we are going to need nuclear'.

Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, whose been campaigning on the issue since the 1970s, begs to differ. ‘They are very much mistaken, I'm not sure what new figures they have seen which would lead them to change their minds. All the new evidence, including much research taken place in Germany that underpinned its recent decision to dispense with nuclear, shows that, in economic terms, it is absolutely viable to press ahead with renewables'.

Craig Bennett, Friends of the Earth's director of policy and campaigns, says on FOE's nuclear position: ‘Do we rule out academic research into nuclear? No. We are always open to new ideas and research - and have indicated that we support research into [fourth-generation] thorium reactors. The concern is that governments leap on that as a silver bullet and public sector money gets poured into it.'

Greenpeace's chief scientist Doug Parr says the group's continued anti nuclear position: ‘Of course there is a case to answer that nuclear is a solution to climate change. Almost certainly it is low carbon, but not everything can be reduced to carbon. You can get a good carbon balance by cutting old growth forests and replacing them with plantations. On a broader sustainability level, is it a good idea? Looking at the evidence, we can do without it'

Where do you stand on the nuclear issue? Devilishly complex, yes. But it's a conundrum we must face up to.

Environment | Share + | Comment