[Previous entry: "Peres to quit Labour Party to back Sharon"] [Next entry: "Atomic hypocrisy"]

11/30/2005:

"Wanted: a debate not a fix"

...The public has good reason to be very sceptical about the claim that there is no alternative to a massive increase in nuclear power station construction if our targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are to be met. In addition to the usual objections to nuclear power - that it has proved far more expensive and less safe than proponents promised - there is a new one, that they will be a prime target for terrorists. Think not just of Britain but of hundreds of nuclear stations scattered around the world from Zimbabwe to China. Nevertheless we cannot dismiss the new claim - that however unsafe or expensive the nuclear option seems to be, the risks are far less than the alternative of allowing greenhouse gases to erode the viability of the planet itself. When environmentalists such as the Guardian's columnist George Monbiot - hardly Tony Blair's spin doctor - do the sums and find that "renewable" energies cannot save the world on present evidence without consideration of nuclear, it may be time to start examining some prejudices.
guardian.co.uk

It is amazing that after all these years it is still possible to say that nuclear power would enhance the 'viability of the planet.'