Professor Chris Busby, the Green Party’s National Speaker on Science and Technology, explains the history and reasoning behind the party’s opposition to nuclear power

The Green Party has always wholly opposed nuclear power and this continues to be the case. Indeed many Green Parties developed from anti-nuclear groups, notably the now very successful German Green Party, whose early leaders were committed anti-nuclear activists. The most famous of these, the late Petra Kelly, agreed to come to Wales to support our Meirionydd Green Party candidate in the General Election of 1992. Our platform there was the closure of the dangerous Trawsfynydd nuclear power station which had been found to have brittle welds but was scheduled to restart at a high operating temperature to anneal the welds. A weld failure and coolant loss could have led to a meltdown and made most of Wales and parts of England uninhabitable.

In the event, Petra was murdered before she could come to Wales but we managed to close the station through non-violent direct action. The German Greens have been behind their government’s decision to phase out nuclear energy whilst the Irish Green Party’s success has been ascribed by many to opposition to nuclear power. In Austria the Greens actually managed to close their only nuclear power station after it was built but before it was commissioned.

The Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) makes it quite clear:
EN105 The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy, which we consider to be expensive and dangerous. The technology is not carbon neutral, and being reliant on uranium it is not renewable. We consider its use, moreover, to be elitist and undemocratic. There is so far no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste. To a degree unequalled by even the worst of other dangerous industries, the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and its waste will be passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted.

This accurately summarises the situation. Yet recently with the increasing concerns about global warming we have seen a number of prominent “environmentalists” arguing for a change of position. The most notable has been the Gaia guru, James Lovelock, who attacked Greens for their ‘mindless opposition to nuclear power’. Those who take this view assume that Greens are somehow well-meaning but scientifically ignorant yokels with a utopianist naïve desire to return to the good old days of the horse and cart. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that we are way ahead of them. Greens are clever: which is why they generally figure out the problem and come up with the best solution. Those who are wobbling on this issue base their case on the plausible and superficial arguments trotted out by the nuclear industry. Sadly none of these arguments are true. The European Committee on Radiation Risk (founded in 1997 with the aid of Caroline Lucas and other European Greens) has calculated that the release of radioactivity to the global environment since 1945 has resulted in over 50 million cancer deaths, an appalling public health scandal. Nuclear sites release radioactive pollutants, and most sites studied show excess rates of child leukaemia and adult cancer. Massive amounts of research in the last ten years have highlighted the dangers of exposure to the novel radioactive elements released routinely by nuclear power, and which have to be dealt with somehow. Those who are interested should visit www.llrc.org or www.euradcom.org or even www.greenaudit.org where they will find enough supporting evidence. If we go down that road, expect more cancer, more infertility, more congenital disease, maybe another Chernobyl or worse. Expect the continuing systematic alteration of the human (and biota) genome. The party is right to oppose this lunacy and those advocating a nuclear future should educate themselves before they enter this scientific arena.

Prof. Chris Busby is Green Party National Speaker on Science and Technology. He holds many academic posts and is Scientific Director of Green Audit (www.greenaudit.org).

Kate Hudson, of the UK Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, talks of the recent statements concerning nuclear weapons and looks at the steps required to ensure their eventual abolition

“The question of nuclear disarmament has once again moved to the top of the international agenda.” So said Javier Solana, the EU’s top person on foreign and security policy, in early December. At virtually the same time a new initiative was being launched in Paris called Global Zero, which brought together one hundred world figures calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile French President Sarkozy was busy putting out an EU plan to revive global disarmament. These add to a whole stream of initiatives calling for an end to nukes. All this is taking place against the backdrop of a big change in the White House.

So where are we going with all this? Are we reaching – or even at – the tipping point? Where the momentum for change becomes unstoppable?

It would be good to say we’d arrived at that point. But there’s still a way to go. Yes, things are going in our direction, but there are still hurdles to be overcome.

Barack Obama has indicated that he would like to see progress on a number of issues as part of the advance to nuclear abolition, including the renewal of the START arms reduction talks between the US and Russia, which will otherwise expire in December 2009. This is one of many good first steps, but good relations with Russia are required. It is impossible to achieve global abolition without positive dialogue between the United States and Russia. Between them they account for about 95% of the world’s 27,000 nuclear weapons.

Two obstacles to that progress were the Bush administration’s determination to put bases for its so-called ‘missile defence’ system in the Czech Republic and Poland, and its backing for NATO expansion into Georgia and the Ukraine. Both of these – backed by the British government – are perceived by Russia to be provocative and threatening to its own security. How can negotiations advance on disarmament when trust between these two countries is lacking? CND is vigorously participating in major campaigns taking place across Europe, opposing both nuclear-armed NATO and ‘missile defence’. With partners across Europe, we are organising a protest in Strasbourg on the 60th anniversary of NATO on April 4. We are also planning to raise opposition to ‘missile defence’ - and Britain’s participation in it – during the European elections this year.

But British policy presents us with problems at home too. Since the exit of Tony Blair from government, a change has taken place in government rhetoric on nuclear weapons. And the government has now recognised that there is a link between the failure of the nuclear weapons states to meet their disarmament obligations and an increased likelihood of nuclear proliferation. In other words, disarmament and non-proliferation must go hand in hand.
Our response was: that’s good – now what are you going to do about it?

Former Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that Britain intends to host a summit for nuclear weapons states, to discuss verification of nuclear disarmament. This is a good initiative and must be welcomed.

But we must be quite clear that if Britain is serious about contributing to global nuclear disarmament, it cannot say one thing and do another. A halt must be called to the Trident developments – submarines, missiles and warheads. That will be a real indication of good faith to the international community, and will help support any initiatives towards multilateral negotiations. This is the message we must convey to the government, and we will be strengthening our campaigning against Trident replacement in the months ahead, as the process will reach the next decision point in September 2009.

The reality is obvious to us if not yet to the government – to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world we need consistency in aims and actions.

Kate Hudson is the chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. For further information on CND’s campaigning, visit www.cnduk.org.