News from the New Party

Friday, February 16, 2007

Greens for climate change

Greenpeace are hailing a victory over the government after a court ruling that the government failed to consult adequately over its plans to expand civil nuclear power production. One would have thought that this was at best a pyrrhic victory for this venerable environmental organisation which has always put itself at the front of the fight against global climate change. In reality, however, the efforts of Greenpeace and others over the past thirty years or so to prevent the development of civil nuclear power, or, in Greenpeace's own words "to end the nuclear age", the Green movement have helped to guarantee that climate change, if it is indeed man made, will be unstoppable.

Greenpeace continues to spout the line that nuclear power is not the answer to climate change. Sarah North, head of the Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaign, said today that the government's decision to opt for nuclear power was "too little, too late" as far as the battle against climate change is concerned. If this is indeed the case, then Greenpeace can claim a large share of the credit for that.

The Greenpeace website is unapologetic:

"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years."

By renewable energy, they mean, among other alternatives such as solar and wave power, and wind energy, concerning which they present the following fatuous comments:

"Personally, we like the look of wind turbines. But then, when we look at them we see a stable climate, living coral reefs, polar bears that haven't become extinct, glaciers that haven't melted, costal cities without flooding, and a source of energy that will safely power millions of peoples lives without ruining millions of others...

Actually, the wind always blows somewhere (particularly off shore and at heights), so [the issue of the wind not always blowing in the same place] is largely irrelevant with a proper electrical grid to move power from one place to another. Modern power grids already transmit electricity over hundreds of kilometres, and cope with significant fluctuations in both demand and supply."

It is just as well that the wind always blows somewhere since the phenomenal number of windmills needed to produce anything like the amount of energy we would need to offset the loss from nuclear power, let alone that generated by fossil fuels, would mean that you would be hard put to find a window in the whole country from which you could not see a wind turbine.

While there is always going to be a place for renewable energy, the idea that modern society can be powered by renewable sources alone is, and always has been, fantasy. Nuclear power is the only way in the medium term that dependence on carbon-emitting forms of energy generation can be reduced. To claim otherwise is at best naÃ¯ve, and at worst dishonest. We tend to conclude that some green activists are less interested in environmental protection as they are in social revolution. In which case we would ardently hope that if ever Mr David Roberts gets his wish for a Nuremberg-style trial for the villains of global climate change, he remembers to put some of his comrades in the dock.

News from the New Party

News Highlights

News Archive

Greens for climate change