Skip to content


Friends of the Earth’s shift on nuclear should be celebrated, not denied via The Guardian

The green group’s opposition is now less ideological and more functional, and that’s a sign of maturity

Nuclear power in the UK has turned out much safer than environmentalists worried it would be.

Friends of the Earth, which feared the threat of a catastrophic Chernobyl-style meltdown in the UK, is now less concerned. Fear of nuclear armageddon was a driving force for the green movement in the UK – Greenpeace has its name for a reason.

But Friends of the Earth have revealed that their old ideological opposition to nuclear has crumbled, to be replaced by a new pragmatic opposition based on cost and build time.

In the old days nuclear was fought because of the health threat; now it’s opposed because it’s the wrong option in an energy system designed to tackle climate change.

The group denies that its position has shifted – but to me this looks a huge and significant shift – and especially controversial if you work for the UK nuclear industry and have been told for decades that your operations are a clear and present danger to the public.

[…]

The presenter Justin Rowlatt interrupted, sounding surprised: “You’re not worried about the risks from radiation?”

Bennett replied:

Of course, there are real concerns about radiation, particularly around nuclear waste… but I think it is important how this debate has shifted down the years.

The real concern now is how we get on fast with de-carbonising our electricity supply. It’s very clear that nuclear can’t deliver big changes fast.

That’s a huge risk if we’re trying to tackle climate change. With renewable technologies and with energy efficiency we could be making a difference within three or four years.

So, presented with a free hit against the risk of a nuclear accident, Friends of the Earth’s green warrior swiped at build-time, cost and grid disruption. Further prompted on safety he swiftly shifted to the intractable problem of waste, and did not mention accidents at all.

Does that mean if nuclear stations were cheap and quick to build and we could bury the waste somewhere, nuclear would become respectable? Well, the group told me later they were just as concerned about accidents as ever – but the cat was out of the green bag.

Read more at Friends of the Earth’s shift on nuclear should be celebrated, not denied

See earlier Guardian article, “Friends of the Earth denies dropping nuclear opposition

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , , , , .


One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. norma field says

    The very article on its own pages that this Guardian article links to is titled “Friends of the Earth denies dropping nuclear power opposition” and quotes the FOE executive director’s statement to that effect. Calling FOE’s “pragmatism” a change in its “nuclear power opposition” seems willful. FOE’s position statements on this issue date from one year ago.

    That said, is there something about the “pragmatism” (which need NOT be opposed to “principle”) attributed to FOE that allowed this opening to be exploited by The Guardian and the BBC? Worry that the legitimately intensifying fears about climate change threatened its antinuclear position vulnerable? Then we would want organizations such as FOE to show concretely how one potential annihilator cannot be canceled by another. That in itself would not be–“pragmatic.”



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.