THE GUARDIAN |
||
COMMENT |
Blair reignites
nuclear debate American lobbying adds to pressure as PM battles to keep controversial energy option on climate change agenda Patrick Wintour and Paul Brown Wednesday July 7, 2004 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday signalled that Britain may have to build a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet the challenge of climate change. Appearing before a
committee of senior MPs, he
disclosed that America was
pressing Britain to look again
at the nuclear option,
including a new generation of
stations that some claim will
be safer and cheaper. Britain
would have to take "some
very difficult
decisions", the prime
minister said. Mr Blair also
revealed that the door to a
fresh round of nuclear
stations had been kept open in
last year's energy white paper
at his personal insistence.
"I have fought long and
hard, both within my party and
outside, to make sure that the
nuclear option is not closed
off," he told the
Westminster session. Even though Mr Blair
insisted big political and
economic hurdles remained in
the way of further nuclear
stations, his remarks were
hailed by pro-nuclear MPs, but
caused consternation among
environmentalists. Mr Blair said the
evidence was now overwhelming
that climate change was the
single biggest long-term
problem facing the country,
and conceded the world was
nowhere near finding a
mechanism to cut carbon
dioxide emissions by the
government's target of 60% by
2050. He told MPs that
there was no way nuclear power
could be removed from the
agenda "if you are
serious about the issue of
climate change". Mr Blair said the
question did not arise of
nuclear power "for
decision today but will arise
within the next few years -
whether as your existing
nuclear power stations run
down you try and replace that
and replace it with the latest
technology which round the
world is developing in a
different way from the
generation of nuclear power
stations that we have
now". He revealed he was
being lobbied by the US to
look at nuclear power as the
best way of cutting carbon
emissions. But Mr Blair
repeatedly stressed that no
decision had been made in
government and the nuclear
industry had to do more to
meet the public's concerns
about safety and costs.
"I think we have got to
be realistic about this.
Unless we overcome these two
hurdles our progress will be
limited," he said. Mr Blair's remarks
reflect the battle between
ministers in the departments
of trade and industry and
environment. The energy white
paper in February 2003 came
down firmly in favour of
energy effi ciency and
renewables being given
priority as the best option
for Britain's future. Nuclear
energy was not ruled out
forever but put on hold for at
least five years. In the last six
months the debate has been
reopened by some environmental
gurus such as James Lovelock,
originator of the Gaia theory,
who said that Britain and the
world could not reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by the 60%
scientists see is needed by
2050 without the help of
nuclear power. The UK is committed
to reducing its 1990
greenhouse gas emissions by
12.5% by 2010, and is on
course to do so. The bigger
manifesto commitment made in
2001 to cut carbon dioxide
emissions by 20% by the same
time was later reduced to an
aspiration and looks unlikely
to be met. Government policy
in the white paper was to get
to a 60% reduction by 2050. The problem with
nuclear power is that it is
both expensive and the
industry takes a decade or
more to find sites and get
planning permissions. The
latest design, the AP 1000,
which has been developed by a
British Nuclear Fuels-owned
company, is not licensed to
operate in Britain. Reaction
from environmentalists to Mr
Blair's comments was
amazement. Tony Juniper,
director of Friends of the
Earth, said: "It took
months to hammer out a policy
in the white paper and nothing
has happened since to change
the basics, which were that
energy efficiency and
renewables were the best bet.
It would be 15 years before
there was one kilowatt of
energy from a new nuclear
station." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
|