The environment movement is needlessly polarised over nuclear power, with Jonathon Porritt only encouraging this tribalism. Can he explain why he thinks nuclear and renewables can’t co-exist?
I know that others don’t share my puzzlement, but I don’t understand why the nuclear question needs to divide the environment movement. Our underlying aim is the same: we all want to reduce human impacts on the biosphere. We all agree that our consumption of resources must be reduced, as sharply as possible. We all question the model of endless economic growth.
Almost everyone in this movement also recognises that – even with the maximum possible conservation of resources and efficiency in the way they are used – we will not be able to bring our consumption down to zero. This is especially the case with electricity. Those who have been following the issue closely know that even with massive reductions in energy demand, electricity use will have to rise in order to remove fossil fuels from both transport and heating.
Continue reading at Why must UK have to choose between nuclear and renewable energy?
◇ Related Article:
・Why the UK must choose renewables over nuclear: an answer to Monbiot via guardian.co.uk