Greenpeace response to the Department for Transport's consultation "Adding capacity at Heathrow Airport"

Greenpeace believes that if the Government is serious about tackling climate change, there should be no question of increasing the number of flights coming in and out of Heathrow Airport. Instead the Government should be radically rethinking its out-of-date policy on aviation, implementing strategies to cap the number of flights at current levels with a view to reducing them in the future and move towards a sustainable, low-carbon transport system.

Greenpeace also considers this consultation process to be seriously flawed: designed to push through a decision that has already been made and without properly taking into account the effect on the environment, or seriously considering alternatives.

However, Greenpeace takes this opportunity to set out its primary concerns below, as though the Government were genuinely seeking views on airport expansion.

Reacting to the announcement this morning by John Hutton that the government intends to encourage the construction of new nuclear power stations, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"This is bad news for Britain's energy security and bad news for our efforts to beat climate change. Nuclear power can only deliver a four percent cut in emissions some time after 2025, and that's too little too late at too high a price. We need energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like those in Scandinavia. That's the way to defeat climate change and ensure energy security."

He continued:

"Going for nuclear power allows politicians like Gordon Brown to project the impression that they're taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems, but in reality it's nothing of the sort. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher pledged to build a nuclear power station every year for a decade. Even the iron lady only managed to build one and it was over budget and late. Brown won't fair any better. In the meantime there is a very grave risk that genuine solutions to climate change could be strangled of investment just as they are taking off."

DEFRA today announced a desire to bury nuclear waste under the ground - so-called ‘geological disposal'. The only mooted region for such a site is Cumbria. But the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, the Government's expert advisers on dealing with nuclear waste, ruled out the possibility of burying nuclear waste under the sea in 2006. They came to this conclusion because of the huge environmental risks it posed, the huge problems it could cause to future generations and because it could breach international law. (See CoRWM final report 'Managing radioactive waste safely' July 2006 pp. 69-70). Professor David Smythe, who served on the Geological Review Panel of British Nuclear Fuels and worked with Nirex, the government's former nuclear waste disposal body, said last year that the geology of the Cumbrian coast made it an unsuitable place to put waste in the long term. He described any plan to store waste there as ‘crazy' and cited findings from a previous inquiry into the site 10 years ago, showing it might be prone to flooding or other disturbances. (See Financial Times November 2nd 2007).

The nuclear white paper published today says: "Our policy is that before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted the government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of the waste they will produce."

Commenting on the government's waste plans John Sauven added:

"The government's nuclear policy looks like a dog's breakfast. Ministers are proposing to store highly radioactive waste in the ground and say new stations won't be given permission to be built until they've worked out how and where to bury it, but the only area so far mooted is Cumbria which the government's own advisors have already ruled out on safety grounds. You have to wonder what on earth is going on in Whitehall."

Greenpeace expects the government and the nuclear industry to make many fallacious claims today. Here we provide you with a helpful guide to exploding nuclear myths:

Myth 1
Nuclear can slash UK emissions

Even if Britain built ten new reactors, nuclear power can only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the Government admits this (Sustainable Development Commission figure). It's too little too late at too high a price.

Myth 2
We need nuclear to ensure we are not dependent on Russia and the Middle East

Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place. Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant. A tiny proportion of the gas we import is from Russia.

Myth 3
There is no alternative to nuclear

The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia. Together they have the potential to deliver reliable low carbon energy quicker and cheaper. They are also safer and globally applicable, unlike nuclear. But these technologies will be strangled if cash and political energy get thrust at nuclear power.

Indeed, Gordon Brown very recently committed the UK to generating around 40% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and his case for nuclear evaporates. At the moment Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power installed as the UK and has given up on nuclear.

Myth 4
Brown is being decisive and strong.

Not strong... just wrong. Margaret Thatcher promised 10 new reactors when she was in power. Just one was built. Going for nuclear allows politicians to project the impression that they are taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems. In reality going for nuclear simply will not solve our energy problems. Other low carbon technologies will.

Myth 5
This second consultation was fair

Not so. In fact the process was, once again, deeply flawed. The Market Research Standards Council is now actively considering a Greenpeace complaint against the company employed to run the consultation. If, as we expect, the complaint is upheld, this second consultation will be viewed like the last one - fatally flawed.

Greenpeace wrote to the Government before Christmas telling them that in our view it would be unlawful to give new nuclear the green light. This was because:

- The consultation was again flawed and in some respects seriously misleading.

- The government had made up its mind to support new nuclear long before it started its consultation.

- There is no solution to deal with nuclear waste. Without a solution it would be irrational and immoral to give the green light to creating more of it.

Our lawyers are looking at today's statement and will advise on its legal meaning. However, we already know that giving the green light to new build is a bad decision. The public consultation was deliberately misleading, there is still no solution to dealing with nuclear waste, and taking the nuclear option now will strangle the real solutions to climate change and energy security.

A full briefing detailing the lie at the heart of government policy is <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-case-against-nuclear-power">here</a>.

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.

Leading experts side with Greenpeace; process now "vulnerable to legal challenge"

A new report from a coalition of top nuclear industry experts has accused the UK Government of failing the British public by conducting a second flawed consultation into the future of nuclear power in this country.

The document, entitled Nuclear Consultation: Public Trust in Government, was written by a group of industry insiders including the current members of two parliamentary committees set up to oversee the sector. It claims that the five month consultation was rushed, undemocratic and failed to properly represent the complexities of the issues involved.

The report will increase the pressure on the Government after Greenpeace lodged an official complaint into the process with the Market Research Standards council (MRSC) in October.

The report asserts that:

• Gordon Brown and Tony Blair repeatedly pre-judged the out come of the second consultation by making statements to Parliament and elsewhere suggesting the decision had already been taken, leaving the consultation "vulnerable to legal challenge".
• Government organised "deliberative events" with members of the public "were designed to provide particular and limited answers", based on "contentious information".
• Members of the public were not adequately informed about the remaining risks and uncertainties surrounding new nuclear build, including the problem of nuclear waste, terrorist attacks and spiraling costs.
• Alternative energy technologies like wind and solar power were not presented as credible alternatives, despite the fact that the UK has the best renewable energy resources in Europe.
• Nuclear power was presented as a major solution to the problem of climate change - glossing over the fact that, according to the Government's own figures, new reactors would reduce the UK's C02 emissions by just 4%

The authors comprise many of the leading experts in the fields of environmental risk, radiation waste, energy policy, energy economics, political science, social science, environmental justice, and the emergent arena of democratic involvement.

The report's editor, Dr Paul Dorfman, is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Warwick as well as the former Co-Secretary to the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE).

Other authors include Prof Frank Barnaby, Nuclear Issues Consultant at the Oxford Research Group and Prof Andy Blowers of The Open University, who is an ex member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management 1 (CoRWM 1)

Reacting to the report, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"For such senior insiders to be so critical of the consultation process is a deeply troubling commentary on the Government's approach to this issue. And as the report reveals, nuclear power could only reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by 4% by 2025 - too little, too late.

Our lawyers are looking at this report and will also examine the Government's decision on new nuclear build with great interest. We won't be rushed into a decision, but nothing has been ruled out at this stage."

For more information contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.