Watch the windfarms
Dear Editor,
Mark Lynas makes a fair fist of a case for nuclear power (although not compelling enough for me). His argument ("Benefits outweigh the risks", GW65) is measured and employs a particular source of sound science. But, in writing his piece, he must have known that he would be up against it because, at the end of his article, he seems to lose the plot and tries to convince us that just because Messrs. Monbiot and Goodall and other "leading greens" are pro-nuclear everyone else should be too. It strikes me as desperate - and a tad insulting to his readers' intelligence - that Lynas feels compelled to pull the eco-celebrity card and to assume that the rest of us are incapable of assessing all the issues and making up our own minds.
But, the rush to nuclear and the rush to wind are both missing the point entirely. Technofix solutions (green or otherwise) are an attempt to make us forget the underlying (and largely ignored) problem of unsustainable population growth and consumption, which trumps the need to ensure that we are as energy- and resource- efficient as possible. The quest for reduced carbon emissions must lie in conserving every drop of energy on land, in the sky and in the sea. Otherwise the march of the wind turbines across some of this country's most fragile landscapes and eco-systems will be relentless and nuclear will become the energy source of choice.
Nick Reeves,
Executive Director, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Dear Editor,
Mark Lynas makes a fair fist of a case for nuclear power (although not compelling enough for me). His argument ("Benefits outweigh the risks", GW65) is measured and employs a particular source of sound science. But, in writing his piece, he must have known that he would be up against it because, at the end of his article, he seems to lose the plot and tries to convince us that just because Messrs. Monbiot and Goodall and other "leading greens" are pro-nuclear everyone else should be too. It strikes me as desperate - and a tad insulting to his readers' intelligence - that Lynas feels compelled to pull the eco-celebrity card and to assume that the rest of us are incapable of assessing all the issues and making up our own minds.
But, the rush to nuclear and the rush to wind are both missing the point entirely. Technofix solutions (green or otherwise) are an attempt to make us forget the underlying (and largely ignored) problem of unsustainable population growth and consumption, which trumps the need to ensure that we are as energy- and resource- efficient as possible. The quest for reduced carbon emissions must lie in conserving every drop of energy on land, in the sky and in the sea. Otherwise the march of the wind turbines across some of this country's most fragile landscapes and eco-systems will be relentless and nuclear will become the energy source of choice.
Nick Reeves,
Executive Director, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Nuclear and the Green Party do not mix
Dear Editor,
I was aghast at finding the nuclear power debate on page 20 Green World 65.
Mark Lynas and the others who support this preposterous ramble should not be members of any green organisation at all. Nuclear Power can never be seen as green!
I have heard all his arguments over and over again, they never ever take into account the generations to come. Let's face it, any radiation risk isn't going to affect us or possibly the next generation; we cannot factor in the terrible things that radiation from buried waste or nuclear power stations may bring about many years from now. It seems to me exchanging one toxic way of living for another is not the answer.
Clean renewable energy is the only way to go if we are to save and build a world for our children and their children's children free from lethal contaminations of any sort.
It worries me deeply that in Jeremy Leggett's 'letter to the industry' they don't know where the waste already produced is buried, we will soon find out when clusters of cancers start appearing.
If renewables cannot be relied on to generate for the whole of Britain why not either incorporate them into new builds meaning small domestic turbines, photovoltaic and hot water solar panels and most important of all good insulation, grants for people to update older houses or slightly bigger solar and wind installations for each community.
As for the risks with turbines killing birds and bats, I have never seen any proof of this happening, the turbines are easy to see and bats use their echo locators to avoid crashing into things, so I think this is a particularly spurious argument. There is no risk from contamination from natural energy production.
I recently rejoined the party, and I am anti nuclear anything so I would be out of here if they allied themselves with anything to do with nuclear power, and I don't think I would be the only one.
Ann Beirne, Newcastle-under-Lyme
Dear Editor,
I was aghast at finding the nuclear power debate on page 20 Green World 65.
Mark Lynas and the others who support this preposterous ramble should not be members of any green organisation at all. Nuclear Power can never be seen as green!
I have heard all his arguments over and over again, they never ever take into account the generations to come. Let's face it, any radiation risk isn't going to affect us or possibly the next generation; we cannot factor in the terrible things that radiation from buried waste or nuclear power stations may bring about many years from now. It seems to me exchanging one toxic way of living for another is not the answer.
Clean renewable energy is the only way to go if we are to save and build a world for our children and their children's children free from lethal contaminations of any sort.
It worries me deeply that in Jeremy Leggett's 'letter to the industry' they don't know where the waste already produced is buried, we will soon find out when clusters of cancers start appearing.
If renewables cannot be relied on to generate for the whole of Britain why not either incorporate them into new builds meaning small domestic turbines, photovoltaic and hot water solar panels and most important of all good insulation, grants for people to update older houses or slightly bigger solar and wind installations for each community.
As for the risks with turbines killing birds and bats, I have never seen any proof of this happening, the turbines are easy to see and bats use their echo locators to avoid crashing into things, so I think this is a particularly spurious argument. There is no risk from contamination from natural energy production.
I recently rejoined the party, and I am anti nuclear anything so I would be out of here if they allied themselves with anything to do with nuclear power, and I don't think I would be the only one.
Ann Beirne, Newcastle-under-Lyme
Emotive removal
Dear Editor,
May I offer my praises for the thought-provoking contents of your Summer 2009 issue. Particularly, I refer to your feature article on the increasing acidification of our oceans. But the article on "Shepherding the Seas" and Mark Lynas' well-argued piece on the long-term advantages of the peaceful uses of nuclear power sources are also to be commended as outstanding journalism in a field too often dominated by sloppy and highly emotive sentiment. Please keep it up.
Prof. (emeritus) Théodore H. McDonald, Littlehampton
Dear Editor,
May I offer my praises for the thought-provoking contents of your Summer 2009 issue. Particularly, I refer to your feature article on the increasing acidification of our oceans. But the article on "Shepherding the Seas" and Mark Lynas' well-argued piece on the long-term advantages of the peaceful uses of nuclear power sources are also to be commended as outstanding journalism in a field too often dominated by sloppy and highly emotive sentiment. Please keep it up.
Prof. (emeritus) Théodore H. McDonald, Littlehampton
Picture. Bigger.
Dear Editor,
Many people (but not all) consider that the greatest of the many different types of damage that this current manic, industrialised, capitalist driven 'civilisation' is inflicting on the biosphere is the problem of 'Global Warming', and believe that the cutting of CO2 emissions is a target that should be adopted - despite any reservations.
But most of the damage that is inflicted to the biosphere is not caused by the CO2 emitted by humanity's profligate use of energy - it is a result of the high level of mankind's general activities, for which an energy supply is essential. With smaller supplies of energy the damage done will be less.
Surely the Green Party was formed as an attempt to guide society towards building a sustainable society that preserves the integrity of the global system that supports life - and this means lowering man's impact on the biosphere - not finding nuclear powered ways to prolong the death of this planet.
The focusing on humanity-induced Global Warming and the energy requirements of the current global civilisation by the authors of those excellent books 'Heat', 'Six Degrees' and 'Ten Technologies to Save the Planet' seems to have caused them to lose sight of the bigger picture. Hopefully most people in the Green Party still see this bigger picture.
John Gale, Stafford
Dear Editor,
Many people (but not all) consider that the greatest of the many different types of damage that this current manic, industrialised, capitalist driven 'civilisation' is inflicting on the biosphere is the problem of 'Global Warming', and believe that the cutting of CO2 emissions is a target that should be adopted - despite any reservations.
But most of the damage that is inflicted to the biosphere is not caused by the CO2 emitted by humanity's profligate use of energy - it is a result of the high level of mankind's general activities, for which an energy supply is essential. With smaller supplies of energy the damage done will be less.
Surely the Green Party was formed as an attempt to guide society towards building a sustainable society that preserves the integrity of the global system that supports life - and this means lowering man's impact on the biosphere - not finding nuclear powered ways to prolong the death of this planet.
The focusing on humanity-induced Global Warming and the energy requirements of the current global civilisation by the authors of those excellent books 'Heat', 'Six Degrees' and 'Ten Technologies to Save the Planet' seems to have caused them to lose sight of the bigger picture. Hopefully most people in the Green Party still see this bigger picture.
John Gale, Stafford
Costs outweigh the benefits
Dear Editor,
Mark Lynas proposes that we build more than 60 nuclear power stations. The Nuclear industry has spent 50 massively subsidised years developing this technology, and the Industry always promises that the new generation of power stations will be cost effective and will perform to specification. Invariably the costs have been far in excess of what the industry claim while the performance has been far below specification. Until the industry develops some financial and performance credibility it doesn't make any sense to allow it to lock up what I suspect would be the overwhelming majority of any funding when the same funds invested in reducing carbon consumption and cost-effective renewables would deliver far more far more quickly.
It also worth considering the carbon effect of building a nuclear power station and the time it would take for any investment to produce any net carbon reduction given the emissions generated by building the plant. Note Jeremy Leggett's point about the delay to the plant currently under construction and his comment about the lack of professional knowledge.
The one thing the nuclear industry has proved itself to be is super competent at lobbying and effectively determining government. I don't think we should fall for it though.
Peter Greig
Dear Editor,
Mark Lynas proposes that we build more than 60 nuclear power stations. The Nuclear industry has spent 50 massively subsidised years developing this technology, and the Industry always promises that the new generation of power stations will be cost effective and will perform to specification. Invariably the costs have been far in excess of what the industry claim while the performance has been far below specification. Until the industry develops some financial and performance credibility it doesn't make any sense to allow it to lock up what I suspect would be the overwhelming majority of any funding when the same funds invested in reducing carbon consumption and cost-effective renewables would deliver far more far more quickly.
It also worth considering the carbon effect of building a nuclear power station and the time it would take for any investment to produce any net carbon reduction given the emissions generated by building the plant. Note Jeremy Leggett's point about the delay to the plant currently under construction and his comment about the lack of professional knowledge.
The one thing the nuclear industry has proved itself to be is super competent at lobbying and effectively determining government. I don't think we should fall for it though.
Peter Greig
Sharing views
Dear Editor,
I would like to share with readers a letter that appeared in "Green Christian" magazine at the conclusion of a letter page debate arguing the pros and cons of nuclear power:
The debate has been whether or not to promote nuclear. This is too narrow a debate. It focuses on spending public money on securing 4% of our energy supply. We should be investing and focusing on the energy solutions that we will need in a post-oil and post-nuclear economy. The longer we delay painting a clear picture of a low energy, decentralized, solar, low/no carbon future, the longer the poor of the world will look to us and see the wrong vision for our collective future sustainability.
To empower the poor, we need to put the first world (ourselves) last, and adopt a "servant king" approach to energy. So, we should look to our energy demands instead of worrying about where our next energy fix is coming from. I don't believe nuclear will get us out of our techno-fix, but instead risks fanning the flames of our energy addiction, as does every solution that deals with our supply rather than challenges our demand for energy - and our views are 'aped' around the world. We need to admit our sin. We need to change our lifestyles.
It should not be one rule for us and a different set for the majority world overseas. We should, on grounds of social and environmental justice, choose solutions that are fit for all. The real issue is not for or against nuclear per se but whether or not we, as Christians, see this issue as one that can be resolved by human driven, largely technical solutions. I believe that climate change needs a change in faith and lifestyle and that government should support this change, not narrow the debate to re-reviewing which technology is best. We need to recognize the log in our own eyes and perhaps look to the beatitudes not the power stations to rebuild our society based on a truly different kind of power. The rich choices are already killing the poor through climate change.
Sustainability needs a shared, ethically-grounded vision - where we are able to stand back from our technical favourites and look at other perspectives and points of view, not to tolerate them but respect and dignify them, before considering these issues at a higher level. We must put ourselves as Jesus in the shoes of the globally disadvantaged and marginalized, as well as act here and now on these issues. We must move the debate up to the next level.
Alan Richardson
Dear Editor,
I would like to share with readers a letter that appeared in "Green Christian" magazine at the conclusion of a letter page debate arguing the pros and cons of nuclear power:
The debate has been whether or not to promote nuclear. This is too narrow a debate. It focuses on spending public money on securing 4% of our energy supply. We should be investing and focusing on the energy solutions that we will need in a post-oil and post-nuclear economy. The longer we delay painting a clear picture of a low energy, decentralized, solar, low/no carbon future, the longer the poor of the world will look to us and see the wrong vision for our collective future sustainability.
To empower the poor, we need to put the first world (ourselves) last, and adopt a "servant king" approach to energy. So, we should look to our energy demands instead of worrying about where our next energy fix is coming from. I don't believe nuclear will get us out of our techno-fix, but instead risks fanning the flames of our energy addiction, as does every solution that deals with our supply rather than challenges our demand for energy - and our views are 'aped' around the world. We need to admit our sin. We need to change our lifestyles.
It should not be one rule for us and a different set for the majority world overseas. We should, on grounds of social and environmental justice, choose solutions that are fit for all. The real issue is not for or against nuclear per se but whether or not we, as Christians, see this issue as one that can be resolved by human driven, largely technical solutions. I believe that climate change needs a change in faith and lifestyle and that government should support this change, not narrow the debate to re-reviewing which technology is best. We need to recognize the log in our own eyes and perhaps look to the beatitudes not the power stations to rebuild our society based on a truly different kind of power. The rich choices are already killing the poor through climate change.
Sustainability needs a shared, ethically-grounded vision - where we are able to stand back from our technical favourites and look at other perspectives and points of view, not to tolerate them but respect and dignify them, before considering these issues at a higher level. We must put ourselves as Jesus in the shoes of the globally disadvantaged and marginalized, as well as act here and now on these issues. We must move the debate up to the next level.
Alan Richardson
Bring it on...
Dear Editor
Well done Green World for starting a debate about nuclear power. I write as a veteran anti-nuclear witness at the Windscale, Sizewell and Hinkley Point public inquiries at which we won the argument and, though losing the inquiry decisions, were proved right and, I believe, made a major part in stopping the helter-skelter nuclear proposals of that time. But times change and the environmental movement has to face up to the fact that the nuclear option has some significant things going for it in the context of climate change. It's not proven but the argument cannot be dismissed with the dogmatic assertions that pervade our party.
Mark Lynas makes a brief summary, which does skate over some problems too easily. He's right about nuclear waste - the issue has always been one of who pays rather than the ultimate risks but I feel he is a bit glib about nuclear weapons proliferation as, historically, the link has always been strong. (Though consider Israel, a major nuclear weapons country but with no civil programme).
But, oh dear, what happened with Jeremy Leggett? His article is almost incomprehensible even to a specialist like myself. Maybe it seemed a good idea on a train journey but the anti-nuclear case does need a better statement than this. Playing the 'terrorism card' in such a way would be risible were it not so irresponsible.
Michael Prior, Manchester
Dear Editor
Well done Green World for starting a debate about nuclear power. I write as a veteran anti-nuclear witness at the Windscale, Sizewell and Hinkley Point public inquiries at which we won the argument and, though losing the inquiry decisions, were proved right and, I believe, made a major part in stopping the helter-skelter nuclear proposals of that time. But times change and the environmental movement has to face up to the fact that the nuclear option has some significant things going for it in the context of climate change. It's not proven but the argument cannot be dismissed with the dogmatic assertions that pervade our party.
Mark Lynas makes a brief summary, which does skate over some problems too easily. He's right about nuclear waste - the issue has always been one of who pays rather than the ultimate risks but I feel he is a bit glib about nuclear weapons proliferation as, historically, the link has always been strong. (Though consider Israel, a major nuclear weapons country but with no civil programme).
But, oh dear, what happened with Jeremy Leggett? His article is almost incomprehensible even to a specialist like myself. Maybe it seemed a good idea on a train journey but the anti-nuclear case does need a better statement than this. Playing the 'terrorism card' in such a way would be risible were it not so irresponsible.
Michael Prior, Manchester
Decisions, decisions...
Dear Editor,
It is often the case that I have to decide which policy to support based on other people's expertise and the strength of their arguments. On this basis Mark Lynas outshone Jeremy Leggett in his case for nuclear power as a vital part of the fight against extreme global warming (GW65).
Lynas presents the arguments in the broad and necessary context of continually rising energy use. While we would all agree that energy efficiency is a key principle of emissions reduction the reality is that it is not sufficient and is harder to sell than alternative forms of energy production. Large-scale renewables are all well and good, but nuclear technology is here and now with lots of experience behind it.
It is not longstanding greens, who may be traditionally nervous about nuclear, that we need to convince to reduce emissions, but the bulk of the population including key actors such as business and government. These are conservative-minded people on the whole and if nuclear power is more acceptable to them than other low-emissions activity, then that makes it the obvious road to choose. It may not be the ultimate perfect solution (what is?) but it is a practical tool which it would be foolhardy to reject.
What is needed from The Green Party is a 'can do' approach, where we support big ideas that are practical instead of whining 'No' to everything. If it's another party's policy too, well all to the better - we need to increase the chance of it happening.
Deb Joffe, Swindon
Dear Editor,
It is often the case that I have to decide which policy to support based on other people's expertise and the strength of their arguments. On this basis Mark Lynas outshone Jeremy Leggett in his case for nuclear power as a vital part of the fight against extreme global warming (GW65).
Lynas presents the arguments in the broad and necessary context of continually rising energy use. While we would all agree that energy efficiency is a key principle of emissions reduction the reality is that it is not sufficient and is harder to sell than alternative forms of energy production. Large-scale renewables are all well and good, but nuclear technology is here and now with lots of experience behind it.
It is not longstanding greens, who may be traditionally nervous about nuclear, that we need to convince to reduce emissions, but the bulk of the population including key actors such as business and government. These are conservative-minded people on the whole and if nuclear power is more acceptable to them than other low-emissions activity, then that makes it the obvious road to choose. It may not be the ultimate perfect solution (what is?) but it is a practical tool which it would be foolhardy to reject.
What is needed from The Green Party is a 'can do' approach, where we support big ideas that are practical instead of whining 'No' to everything. If it's another party's policy too, well all to the better - we need to increase the chance of it happening.
Deb Joffe, Swindon
Civilised policies
Dear Green World,
The GPEW is a political party that has been expressly formed to attempt to replace our existing destructive civilisation with a just and ecologically benign society.
The call for the Green Party to support nuclear power is a mistaken attempt to maintain this same destructive civilisation and is therefore a betrayal of our core values. We can achieve a better standard of life that is just and ecologically benign resulting in a society having a lower energy requirement. For the necessary transition to take place we must avoid locking ourselves into the long term commitment of nuclear power.
At this time it is vital that the Green Party reaffirms its fundamental values and commitment to clean renewable energy by exposing the threat of nuclear power.
Stafford and Stone Green Party
Dudley Green Party
Leominster and North Herefordshire Green Party
South Shropshire Green Party
Dear Green World,
The GPEW is a political party that has been expressly formed to attempt to replace our existing destructive civilisation with a just and ecologically benign society.
The call for the Green Party to support nuclear power is a mistaken attempt to maintain this same destructive civilisation and is therefore a betrayal of our core values. We can achieve a better standard of life that is just and ecologically benign resulting in a society having a lower energy requirement. For the necessary transition to take place we must avoid locking ourselves into the long term commitment of nuclear power.
At this time it is vital that the Green Party reaffirms its fundamental values and commitment to clean renewable energy by exposing the threat of nuclear power.
Stafford and Stone Green Party
Dudley Green Party
Leominster and North Herefordshire Green Party
South Shropshire Green Party
Many thanks
I'd like to thank the Green Party for printing Mark Lynas and Jeremy Leggett's articles on Nuclear Power in the latest edition of Green World. Mark's article contains some admirable analysis but he also draws upon some sources which are open to dispute and in other areas he has fallen for the propaganda from the nuclear lobby, the same lobby which in the sixties and seventies was promising us electricity "too cheap to meter". At the time of the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs, many of us allowed emotions to rule our heads and supported nuclear. Now the real threat comes from continuing to use nuclear power, not from stopping.
Mark attacks opponents of nuclear power on the grounds that they have "an unscientific approach to risk", but although health and safety are vital factors when building our infrastructure, they are not the only factors. There is currently no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. My lack of confidence in the industry's ability to deliver the 4th generation nuclear power station, that Mark says will solve the waste problems, is only matched by my scepticism in its ability to clear up the mess from the existing power stations, or to deliver the 3rd generation to budget and on time, as the projects at Olkiluoto, Finland and Flameville, France show.
We must look at the big picture and also consider economic and social factors. The economics of nuclear power are key to its future and neither writer gave much attention to this issue, which I hope you will give me the chance to remedy. I agree with the soon to be replaced head of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), Jonathon Porritt, when he said that there has not been a nuclear power station in the world that has been built without significant public subsidy. I am aware that the stated government policy is that no nuclear power stations will be built in the UK unless operators bear "the full cost of generation, including decommissioning and their fair share of waste disposal". However, the government is already failing to implement its policy. It continues to bear a significant share of the liability in the case of a serious nuclear accident. The flat rate levy which it has put in place will mean that the full cost of decommissioning, which are almost all incurred as soon as the plant opens, will not be recovered by the government until forty years from the opening of the power station, resulting in a huge disincentive to close a nuclear power station even if uneconomic. In addition the government has said that it will put in place significant public funds into communities which are prepared to house nuclear waste. A member of the Cornwall County Council is quoted as saying this subsidy is likely to be between £4 and £6 billion. In spite of this bribery, Cornwall refused to become a potential waste site. The government and the tax payer will take over responsibility for managing nuclear waste fifty years after it is passed over for long term storage or disposal, in spite of the waste remaining dangerous for thousands of years. It seems that the principle that the polluter should pay does not apply to nuclear waste.
The government has invested significant parliamentary time to enact a law to speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects. This change will prevent evidence presented at the public enquiry from being questioned and stop expert witnesses being cross examined. Yet the delays and uncertainties in the planning system for smaller projects are in a large part blamed for the closing of Vestas in the UK, a wind turbine blade manufacturer in the Isle of Wight. We need to urgently address this and restore the level playing field between renewables and nuclear.
If there were a fair and open market in electricity, then we could just allow developments to go ahead and the cheapest and the most efficient sources to survive. However, the very existence of subsidised nuclear power actually displaces renewable technologies. Even so, the nuclear industry is calling for even more subsidy, in the form of a carbon trading system which favours nuclear power. I urge the Green Party to refuse to accept the protestations of a largely discredited nuclear industry and instead to agree with the report produced by the SDC saying that nuclear has no place in our future energy mix.
Pete Rowberry, Publicity Officer, Communities against Nuclear Expansion (CANE)
www.suffolkcane.org.uk
I'd like to thank the Green Party for printing Mark Lynas and Jeremy Leggett's articles on Nuclear Power in the latest edition of Green World. Mark's article contains some admirable analysis but he also draws upon some sources which are open to dispute and in other areas he has fallen for the propaganda from the nuclear lobby, the same lobby which in the sixties and seventies was promising us electricity "too cheap to meter". At the time of the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs, many of us allowed emotions to rule our heads and supported nuclear. Now the real threat comes from continuing to use nuclear power, not from stopping.
Mark attacks opponents of nuclear power on the grounds that they have "an unscientific approach to risk", but although health and safety are vital factors when building our infrastructure, they are not the only factors. There is currently no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. My lack of confidence in the industry's ability to deliver the 4th generation nuclear power station, that Mark says will solve the waste problems, is only matched by my scepticism in its ability to clear up the mess from the existing power stations, or to deliver the 3rd generation to budget and on time, as the projects at Olkiluoto, Finland and Flameville, France show.
We must look at the big picture and also consider economic and social factors. The economics of nuclear power are key to its future and neither writer gave much attention to this issue, which I hope you will give me the chance to remedy. I agree with the soon to be replaced head of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), Jonathon Porritt, when he said that there has not been a nuclear power station in the world that has been built without significant public subsidy. I am aware that the stated government policy is that no nuclear power stations will be built in the UK unless operators bear "the full cost of generation, including decommissioning and their fair share of waste disposal". However, the government is already failing to implement its policy. It continues to bear a significant share of the liability in the case of a serious nuclear accident. The flat rate levy which it has put in place will mean that the full cost of decommissioning, which are almost all incurred as soon as the plant opens, will not be recovered by the government until forty years from the opening of the power station, resulting in a huge disincentive to close a nuclear power station even if uneconomic. In addition the government has said that it will put in place significant public funds into communities which are prepared to house nuclear waste. A member of the Cornwall County Council is quoted as saying this subsidy is likely to be between £4 and £6 billion. In spite of this bribery, Cornwall refused to become a potential waste site. The government and the tax payer will take over responsibility for managing nuclear waste fifty years after it is passed over for long term storage or disposal, in spite of the waste remaining dangerous for thousands of years. It seems that the principle that the polluter should pay does not apply to nuclear waste.
The government has invested significant parliamentary time to enact a law to speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects. This change will prevent evidence presented at the public enquiry from being questioned and stop expert witnesses being cross examined. Yet the delays and uncertainties in the planning system for smaller projects are in a large part blamed for the closing of Vestas in the UK, a wind turbine blade manufacturer in the Isle of Wight. We need to urgently address this and restore the level playing field between renewables and nuclear.
If there were a fair and open market in electricity, then we could just allow developments to go ahead and the cheapest and the most efficient sources to survive. However, the very existence of subsidised nuclear power actually displaces renewable technologies. Even so, the nuclear industry is calling for even more subsidy, in the form of a carbon trading system which favours nuclear power. I urge the Green Party to refuse to accept the protestations of a largely discredited nuclear industry and instead to agree with the report produced by the SDC saying that nuclear has no place in our future energy mix.
Pete Rowberry, Publicity Officer, Communities against Nuclear Expansion (CANE)
www.suffolkcane.org.uk
Weight of evidence
Mark Lynas (GW65) claims that: "Epidemiologists have found no convincing evidence" of 'cancer clusters' surrounding nuclear installations. He is apparently unaware of the very 'convincing evidence' of this produced by our member, Prof. Chris Busby, and the Low Level Radiation Campaign, who have also highlighted the seaborne effluent from around the coast at Sellafield, etc.
Mark also states that "...the amount of radiation exposure we all receive in Britain due to nuclear power is less than 1% of natural background levels". This may be true (though how much of those 'natural background levels' is due to post-WW2 nuclear testing, and the bombs on Japan?), but Chris and colleagues have also shown that any ingested man-made particles are up to 1000 times as carcinogenic as natural particles of equivalent radioactivity. This is explained by his 'second event theory'.
Mark should read Chris' book, Wings of Death (1995) or his Wolves of Water (2006) for the chilling facts about the nuclear authorities' ongoing cover-up of the extreme danger of continuing with nuclear fission, and the harm it has already caused.
As an example of the many independent studies showing the reality of this danger, Mark should read the recent German Government study (2007) which found a 2-3 fold excess of child leukemia in children 0-4 living within 5km of all nuclear power stations in Germany from 1984-2003.
Brian Leslie, Kent Green Party
Mark Lynas (GW65) claims that: "Epidemiologists have found no convincing evidence" of 'cancer clusters' surrounding nuclear installations. He is apparently unaware of the very 'convincing evidence' of this produced by our member, Prof. Chris Busby, and the Low Level Radiation Campaign, who have also highlighted the seaborne effluent from around the coast at Sellafield, etc.
Mark also states that "...the amount of radiation exposure we all receive in Britain due to nuclear power is less than 1% of natural background levels". This may be true (though how much of those 'natural background levels' is due to post-WW2 nuclear testing, and the bombs on Japan?), but Chris and colleagues have also shown that any ingested man-made particles are up to 1000 times as carcinogenic as natural particles of equivalent radioactivity. This is explained by his 'second event theory'.
Mark should read Chris' book, Wings of Death (1995) or his Wolves of Water (2006) for the chilling facts about the nuclear authorities' ongoing cover-up of the extreme danger of continuing with nuclear fission, and the harm it has already caused.
As an example of the many independent studies showing the reality of this danger, Mark should read the recent German Government study (2007) which found a 2-3 fold excess of child leukemia in children 0-4 living within 5km of all nuclear power stations in Germany from 1984-2003.
Brian Leslie, Kent Green Party
Photo opportunity
Dear Editor,
Photovoltaics should get lots of publicity - PLEASE! - then we shan't need fossil fules - or nuclear!
I was amazed at the pro-nuclear article in Green World 65 (Summer issue). I live near Sizewell - I've been told by a fish inspectors' family that 'he' has stopped the family from eating north sea fish because they are now so cancerous, which he puts down to nuclear 'outfalls'. And for years I belonged to a radiation monitrong group - measuring gamma radiation. Background gamma should be around 600bq. Per 10 minutes - on the public beach it's often over 2000! And a friend of mine has told me about nuclear workers' cancer death rates - that get no publicity. I suggested one should publicise them - but she didn't dare!!
Green Party - don't back nuclear, it is no way green. Photovoltaics - YES!
Jen Berry, Halesworth
Dear Editor,
Photovoltaics should get lots of publicity - PLEASE! - then we shan't need fossil fules - or nuclear!
I was amazed at the pro-nuclear article in Green World 65 (Summer issue). I live near Sizewell - I've been told by a fish inspectors' family that 'he' has stopped the family from eating north sea fish because they are now so cancerous, which he puts down to nuclear 'outfalls'. And for years I belonged to a radiation monitrong group - measuring gamma radiation. Background gamma should be around 600bq. Per 10 minutes - on the public beach it's often over 2000! And a friend of mine has told me about nuclear workers' cancer death rates - that get no publicity. I suggested one should publicise them - but she didn't dare!!
Green Party - don't back nuclear, it is no way green. Photovoltaics - YES!
Jen Berry, Halesworth
No trace of transition?
Dear Editor,
It was encouraging to read in GW65 that the South Devon event 'Farming beyond oil' was a success. However, I was surprised to find no mention in that article - about an event in Totnes on the theme of peak oil and food security - of the Transition Towns network, which started in Totnes and whose aims very much include moving away from the present fossil fuel dependent food supply system. Is such lack of coverage considerately meant, to avoid compromising the non-political nature of Transition? Or is it that the Green Party wants to keep it at arm's length?
Steve Plater, Sevenoaks
Dear Editor,
It was encouraging to read in GW65 that the South Devon event 'Farming beyond oil' was a success. However, I was surprised to find no mention in that article - about an event in Totnes on the theme of peak oil and food security - of the Transition Towns network, which started in Totnes and whose aims very much include moving away from the present fossil fuel dependent food supply system. Is such lack of coverage considerately meant, to avoid compromising the non-political nature of Transition? Or is it that the Green Party wants to keep it at arm's length?
Steve Plater, Sevenoaks
Stocking up
Dear Editor,
I was interested to read the article "Exploring Landscapes" in Green World 65 and agree with the condemnation of intensive animal farming. However, I was extremely disappointed by the apparent bias of the discussion towards animal exploitation. Even those Green Party members unconcerned about the ethics of farming animals should by now be aware of the environmental advantages of stockfree organic farming which does not even get a mention.
To leave stockfree organics out of the equation is shortsighted and misleading. Stockfree organic farming uses green manures to fertilise the soil and its advantages in terms of minimal carbon footprint, efficient land use and low water use are beyond question. The production of biochar is another method of sequestering CO2 whilst improving soil fertility. Regarding nutrition, it is not vital to eat dairy and meat to obtain essential fatty acids in your diet: vegetable sources of both Omega 3 and Omega 6 are well documented, yet there is no mention of growing grains, nuts, pulses, hemp, lupins etc.
Former UK Chief Scientist Sir Martin Holdgate has pointed out that today's countryside is "an artefact and, in biological terms, an impoverished one". Several references to Devon's "pastoral landscape" seem to imply a preference for aesthetics over ethics, whilst ignoring the potential advantages, both aesthetic and environmental, of a farmed animal-free landscape, reforested and teeming with wildlife.
I hope that local parties organising similar events in the future will consider inviting speakers from the vegan-organic (stockfree) movement. What do other vegetarian and vegan Green Party members think of South Devon's addiction to animal farming?
Sally Ford, Ludlow
Dear Editor,
I was interested to read the article "Exploring Landscapes" in Green World 65 and agree with the condemnation of intensive animal farming. However, I was extremely disappointed by the apparent bias of the discussion towards animal exploitation. Even those Green Party members unconcerned about the ethics of farming animals should by now be aware of the environmental advantages of stockfree organic farming which does not even get a mention.
To leave stockfree organics out of the equation is shortsighted and misleading. Stockfree organic farming uses green manures to fertilise the soil and its advantages in terms of minimal carbon footprint, efficient land use and low water use are beyond question. The production of biochar is another method of sequestering CO2 whilst improving soil fertility. Regarding nutrition, it is not vital to eat dairy and meat to obtain essential fatty acids in your diet: vegetable sources of both Omega 3 and Omega 6 are well documented, yet there is no mention of growing grains, nuts, pulses, hemp, lupins etc.
Former UK Chief Scientist Sir Martin Holdgate has pointed out that today's countryside is "an artefact and, in biological terms, an impoverished one". Several references to Devon's "pastoral landscape" seem to imply a preference for aesthetics over ethics, whilst ignoring the potential advantages, both aesthetic and environmental, of a farmed animal-free landscape, reforested and teeming with wildlife.
I hope that local parties organising similar events in the future will consider inviting speakers from the vegan-organic (stockfree) movement. What do other vegetarian and vegan Green Party members think of South Devon's addiction to animal farming?
Sally Ford, Ludlow
Sequestering information
Dear Editor,
Lydia and Robert Somerville's successful 'Farming Beyond Oil' event in South Devon (Green World 65) invited speakers with a variety of expertise in farming and environment issues. The event would have been more representative of current developments in environment-friendly farming had it included the further concept 'Farming Beyond Livestock'.
Research on carbon sequestration in the soil is really in its infancy, but it is unlikely that 'careful management of livestock on species-rich pasture' is more carbon-neutral than a stockfree system with careful build-up of soil fertility and biodiversity (especially when zero-tillage is employed) - a system which automatically excludes the emissions and energy needs of the animals themselves (including slaughter and processing). These need to be put into the equation even when livestock are majority grass-fed. Moreover, recent developments in the manufacture of bio-char point to a more viable way forward.
In an area of intensive dairy farming like South Devon, stockfree farming might be hard to grasp; but perhaps not so hard to grasp compared with the change-over from conventional to organic farming. Much grazing land is considered 'marginal' but one of the UK's most productive stockfree farms is set on less than ideal land and supplies 400 boxes of stockfree organic produce each week to local customers, with a carbon footprint of just 8 tonnes a year, equivalent to that or an average household (http://www.stockfreeorganic.net/).
The Green Party's agricultural speaker is reported to have said that 'new research from the Centre for Agricultural Strategy at the University of Reading calculates that England and Wales can feed itself by mixed organic farming alone'. This needs to be corrected. Amongst this report's conclusions is: 'A wholly organic agriculture would produce around 60% of current conventional cereals production and self-sufficiency would fall from around 100% to nearer 60%' ... 'The picture that emerges is mixed.'
Jones, P.J. & Crane, R. England and Wales under organic agriculture: how much food could be produced? (2009)
It is much easier to speculate that without the enormous economic and environmental costs of livestock farming, Britain could easily feed itself (see The Land 4 Winter 2007).
We heartily agree that organic farming has a huge role to play in securing long-term national food supplies but we also heartily wish to exclude the waste, pollution, violence and exploitation associated with livestock farming.
The members and supporters of the Vegan-Organic Network are farmers, market gardeners, growers and gardeners, not all of whom are vegans or vegetarians. We research and promote vegan-organic (stockfree) methods of agriculture and horticulture so that truly environment-friendly food becomes widely available. The Network organises farm walks, allotment and garden visits and volunteer placements on stockfree holdings and, for commercial growers, provides Stockfree Organic Standards, inspected by the Soil Association. VON is now on the verge of a major surge of growth, being in a position to develop a network of stockfree farmers, growers and associated projects who will demonstrate their methods and help train others. Please find out more www.veganorganic.net and www.stockfreeorganic.net.
Peter White, trustee of the Vegan-Organic Network
Dear Editor,
Lydia and Robert Somerville's successful 'Farming Beyond Oil' event in South Devon (Green World 65) invited speakers with a variety of expertise in farming and environment issues. The event would have been more representative of current developments in environment-friendly farming had it included the further concept 'Farming Beyond Livestock'.
Research on carbon sequestration in the soil is really in its infancy, but it is unlikely that 'careful management of livestock on species-rich pasture' is more carbon-neutral than a stockfree system with careful build-up of soil fertility and biodiversity (especially when zero-tillage is employed) - a system which automatically excludes the emissions and energy needs of the animals themselves (including slaughter and processing). These need to be put into the equation even when livestock are majority grass-fed. Moreover, recent developments in the manufacture of bio-char point to a more viable way forward.
In an area of intensive dairy farming like South Devon, stockfree farming might be hard to grasp; but perhaps not so hard to grasp compared with the change-over from conventional to organic farming. Much grazing land is considered 'marginal' but one of the UK's most productive stockfree farms is set on less than ideal land and supplies 400 boxes of stockfree organic produce each week to local customers, with a carbon footprint of just 8 tonnes a year, equivalent to that or an average household (http://www.stockfreeorganic.net/).
The Green Party's agricultural speaker is reported to have said that 'new research from the Centre for Agricultural Strategy at the University of Reading calculates that England and Wales can feed itself by mixed organic farming alone'. This needs to be corrected. Amongst this report's conclusions is: 'A wholly organic agriculture would produce around 60% of current conventional cereals production and self-sufficiency would fall from around 100% to nearer 60%' ... 'The picture that emerges is mixed.'
Jones, P.J. & Crane, R. England and Wales under organic agriculture: how much food could be produced? (2009)
It is much easier to speculate that without the enormous economic and environmental costs of livestock farming, Britain could easily feed itself (see The Land 4 Winter 2007).
We heartily agree that organic farming has a huge role to play in securing long-term national food supplies but we also heartily wish to exclude the waste, pollution, violence and exploitation associated with livestock farming.
The members and supporters of the Vegan-Organic Network are farmers, market gardeners, growers and gardeners, not all of whom are vegans or vegetarians. We research and promote vegan-organic (stockfree) methods of agriculture and horticulture so that truly environment-friendly food becomes widely available. The Network organises farm walks, allotment and garden visits and volunteer placements on stockfree holdings and, for commercial growers, provides Stockfree Organic Standards, inspected by the Soil Association. VON is now on the verge of a major surge of growth, being in a position to develop a network of stockfree farmers, growers and associated projects who will demonstrate their methods and help train others. Please find out more www.veganorganic.net and www.stockfreeorganic.net.
Peter White, trustee of the Vegan-Organic Network
Unfair advantage
Dear Editor,
"We're now on course to win our first Westminster seats whenever Gordon Brown decides to call the election." Caroline Lucas' comments draw attention to the fact that the party in power has the right to fix the date of a general election.
In my opinion, this gives the party in government an unfair advantage. They will always try to call an election at a time that is favourable to them, and they already have an inbuilt advantage over the other parties because of their control of the budget.
We already have fixed-term parliaments for the European Parliament. I think we should have fixed-term parliaments for the House of Commons too.
Andrew Banks Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Dear Editor,
"We're now on course to win our first Westminster seats whenever Gordon Brown decides to call the election." Caroline Lucas' comments draw attention to the fact that the party in power has the right to fix the date of a general election.
In my opinion, this gives the party in government an unfair advantage. They will always try to call an election at a time that is favourable to them, and they already have an inbuilt advantage over the other parties because of their control of the budget.
We already have fixed-term parliaments for the European Parliament. I think we should have fixed-term parliaments for the House of Commons too.
Andrew Banks Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Hunting drugs
Dear Editor,
I'm writing to draw your attention to the role that Corporate Sales is playing in helping to secure the position of the pro-hunting lobby. Most people hold the medical profession in a high regard as they "save lives". What they don't know perhaps is that the medical sales teams of large pharmaceutical companies routinely invite doctors to free hunting weekends and holidays in return for increased medical research presence and prescription product promotion.
The false connection being made between the public goodwill towards medicine and the hunting lobby is largely unchallenged. The amount of money involved in this specialist medical area of corporate hospitality is vast and the doctors involved are in very senior positions such as Prof. Leslie J. Findley who is the UK representative on Parkinson's Disease at the World Health Organisation, Head of the Essex Neuroscience Unit and "inventor" of ME. ME as a diagnosis was recently under scrutiny by a government committee led by former Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson.
David Elisha
Dear Editor,
I'm writing to draw your attention to the role that Corporate Sales is playing in helping to secure the position of the pro-hunting lobby. Most people hold the medical profession in a high regard as they "save lives". What they don't know perhaps is that the medical sales teams of large pharmaceutical companies routinely invite doctors to free hunting weekends and holidays in return for increased medical research presence and prescription product promotion.
The false connection being made between the public goodwill towards medicine and the hunting lobby is largely unchallenged. The amount of money involved in this specialist medical area of corporate hospitality is vast and the doctors involved are in very senior positions such as Prof. Leslie J. Findley who is the UK representative on Parkinson's Disease at the World Health Organisation, Head of the Essex Neuroscience Unit and "inventor" of ME. ME as a diagnosis was recently under scrutiny by a government committee led by former Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson.
David Elisha
Eccentrics abound
Dear Editor,
My experience of the Green Party has been limited and worrying. I have discovered that the party has become the home for all sorts of slightly eccentric people. The lady who is willing to be arrested in the belief that it will bring about the removal of American military bases, the vegetarian who would like to see our farmers abandon cattle rearing, the pacifist who beseeches the Lord to spare his home from atomic bombs, a somewhat selective prayer, those who support anti-nuclear measures but prefer nuclear to windfarms. Lunch with these people is a stimulating, conversational feast but is it the discipline that forms a political party? Democracy by all means but where are the whips to keep us all going in the right direction? Perhaps we should hear from all these organisers who live in a flurry of e-mails. All well-meaning but there is no point in our leader taking the train to the Finland Station, we are not a party. By the way, I have nothing against eccentrics, I'm one myself.
John Gordon, Ripon
Dear Editor,
My experience of the Green Party has been limited and worrying. I have discovered that the party has become the home for all sorts of slightly eccentric people. The lady who is willing to be arrested in the belief that it will bring about the removal of American military bases, the vegetarian who would like to see our farmers abandon cattle rearing, the pacifist who beseeches the Lord to spare his home from atomic bombs, a somewhat selective prayer, those who support anti-nuclear measures but prefer nuclear to windfarms. Lunch with these people is a stimulating, conversational feast but is it the discipline that forms a political party? Democracy by all means but where are the whips to keep us all going in the right direction? Perhaps we should hear from all these organisers who live in a flurry of e-mails. All well-meaning but there is no point in our leader taking the train to the Finland Station, we are not a party. By the way, I have nothing against eccentrics, I'm one myself.
John Gordon, Ripon
▾
▾