Greenpeace wins case in High Court over nuclear energy

A judge has ruled that the Government’s consultation process before making its decision on nuclear energy last year was “seriously flawed” and “procedurally unfair”. See the Independent report.

This entry was posted in Energy, Nuclear. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Greenpeace wins case in High Court over nuclear energy

  1. earthpal says:

    Well done GREENPEACE!

    And even after this embarrassment for the government, Blair remains defiant about nuclear energy.

  2. matt says:

    His first reaction is that this judgement is about the procedure not the policy. Yes of course Mr Blair … ( is that light I see coming from your ears).

  3. keithsc says:

    I don’t think the judge would have the power to make a judgement on the Government’s policy – unlike in the USA. Still it’s an interesting step.

  4. matt says:

    Seems to be the new tactic for Greenpeace to spend lots of their donators’ money on high profile court cases that involve taking governments to court on policy related matters. Interesting, yes, but expensive.

  5. earthpal says:

    Yes, but in this case, if it forces the government to have a proper and full public consultation which in turn results in a rejection of building new nuclear power stations then I guess it will have been money well spent.

  6. matt says:

    Well, unfortunately Tony listens to no one so I think this might end up being money down the plug hole.

    I’m beginning to think nuclear could be the answer, rather than the disaster that is biofuels.

  7. earthpal says:

    Nuclear energy is a real dilemma for the enviromentalists. It’s the one thing that causes divisions within the movement.

  8. matt says:

    Good article. There are scientists working on massively reducing the half life of nuclear waste as we speak but, it involves keeping the waste well below zero which in turn means more energy use within the nuclear station’s life cycle. Still, with the huge carbon gap between nuclear & fossil fuel driven stations this may be accaeptable.

    Point is, reducing the half life of nuclear waste is the key. Something Monbiot doesn’t discuss in that particular article.

  9. keithsc says:

    I think it is great that Greenpeace is challenging the Government in court cases . It is certainly expensive but it can make a real difference to Government policy – in a way that other gestures cannot. It might just delay the same decision but it is really important that there is a real discussion in the country.
    Reducing the half life is an interesting idea but I can’t see how it works. Surely cooling things down slows them down, reduces activity and as a result would lengthen the half life but reduce the level of emissions. But I could be wrong.

  10. Pete Smith says:

    Matt says:

    I’m beginning to think nuclear could be the answer, rather than the disaster that is biofuels.

    Nice one Matt.

    earthpal says:

    Nuclear energy is a real dilemma for the enviromentalists. It’s the one thing that causes divisions within the movement.

    And windfarms. The trouble is that the ‘green’ NGOs are so bloody dogmatic about very complex issues. That’s why I gave up on FoE and Greenpeace, although I still pay my membership. As soon as you start trying to initiate debate about nuclear power perhaps being a pragmatic choice in view of timescales and the adverse environmental impacts of alternatives, you get ostracised.

  11. matt says:

    Oi. You kept that one quiet Pete! πŸ™‚

  12. Pete Smith says:

    Which one? The fact there’s something we might agree on? 😎

    I’m not the only one ……

  13. earthpal says:

    Patrick Moore likes to think his previous GREENPEACE connections give credibility to his current views. He has done a complete U-turn on nuclear power. Now he is a nuclear spin-doctor who makes a rather good living as an enviro-PR man for the large abusing industries.

    He demands thousands of dollars for every pro-nuclear speech he makes. This, along with his connections with the logging industry, the mining industry, PVC manufacturing make his current stance a touch questionable.

    He is even quoted to have said that the save-the-forests campaigns are based on bad science and dismissed any impact that logging had on them. He also rejected Kyoto as a waste of time and money and condoned the US for refusing to back it.

    If a total and absolute solution to safe waste storage can be found then perhaps I would hesitatingly accept nuclear power as a temporary power source. But none has been found in spite of Patrick Moore’s rather misleading claims about spent fuel being 90+% less radioactive after forty years thus implying that it’s safe. Of course it’s still not safe. It’s still radioactive and it’s still costly to store.

    He also tries to refute claims that nuclear power is very expensive but of course it’s expensive. How much does he think it’s going to cost to build all these super-duper new saviours of the planet? And then there are the storage, transportation, security, health and safety costs. Of course, the fossil fuel industries have all those maintenance and safety costs to fund but we’re talking radioactive here which would surely need much more specialised care.

    The cost isn’t the issue for me anyway. It’s the safety and the cleanliness. I just don’t like grossly exaggerated claims being made to promote an agenda. And that’s what Moore is doing.

  14. matt says:

    I don’t like newspaper articles that claim things as fact without footnotes. Very naughty indeed.

  15. Pete Smith says:

    LOL I thought that would rattle a few cages! 😎

    Moore has said and done good things and bad things since he ‘left’ Greenpeace. The fact is that Greenpeace hate him, regard him as a “traitor”, and have consistently rubbished everything he’s done, good or bad. Someone should have considered whether they should have tried harder to keep him inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.
    His stance on nuclear power is bad enough as far as the green mainstream goes, but he’s compounded his felony by advocating GM crops. This is another black-and-white issue for the environmental NGOs. If it’s GM, it’s completely unacceptable, ever. No arguments. Whereas in a sensible world, sensible people would demand “proper and full public consultation” and go where that takes them, rather than a dogmatic “never mind the question, here’s the answer”. A bit like the Blair government’s energy review really.

  16. Pete Smith says:

    I don’t like newspaper articles that claim things as fact without footnotes. Very naughty indeed

    Yeah well, we all do it Matt, even you 😎
    I suppose there’s no point in saying that the Independent’s ‘Commentary’ strand has a house style that avoids academic-style referencing. I guess he should have stood up to the editor a bit more.

  17. matt says:

    Newspapers have become lazy when they can least afford it. They are losing readers at a great rate and the advertising revenue is going with them. Google UK is now getting more ad revenue than the newspapers. Newspapers need to wake up or die.

  18. Pete Smith says:

    Perhaps the Independent’s focus groups have identified footnotes, references and bibliographies as a real turn-off. Give the punters what they want.

  19. matt says:

    Sure, no newspaper bothers with referencing particularly. From what I read the newspaper punters are missing good investigative journalism and are fed up with recycled top 10’s & silly columnists who are only interested in the sound of their own voice. But hey, we’re off topic again.

  20. Pete Smith says:

    OK, I can take a hint.

Comments are closed.