Recieved this letter today
The world is facing climate change through the increasing carbon emissions of modern society. The Blair government is now considering going down the nuclear road again. This is a mistake we could all end up paying for.
A new nuclear power station takes 10 years to build, but we need action now. Sizewell cost the taxpayers £3.7 billion, and decommissioning our current ageing power stations would cost an estimated £56 billion.
Nuclear power is not carbon free. Its cycle of production causes 50% more emissions than wind power. We need a government that genuinely pursues renewable energy sources. Such as wind power, and all new buildings having cavity wall insulation. The use of solar power roofing with an increase in the government subsidy to at least two thirds of the cost of installation.
Another strong reason for not using nuclear power is that it’s not safe. As the slogan painted on a railway bridge in Portobello Road stated “Nuclear power fades your genes” This might not seem too important locally until you realize that they were transporting nuclear waste up the West London line to Willesden junction on its way to Sellafield. I spoke to British Nuclear Fuels to try and ascertain whether this was still the case. After speaking to four different departments I was no wiser, but they did promise to get back to me!
Eddie Adams
London
Alliance for Green Socialism Prospective candidate for the Golborne Ward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
mmm
There are a lot of specifically rurual issues that are completely ignored, poverty, lack of services and even shops, non-existent public transport, housing crises excaerbated by second hoime ownersm and there is a problem that rural political issues are hijacked by hooray henries, but equally a problem that an ill-informed townie agenda pushes the rural poor and the landowners together.
The problem with Reuben's arguments here is that the "massive need for new housing" under free market conditions is the expansion of mock tudor executive detached houses, rather than an expansion of social housing that would benefit the working class in both the country and the town - which wuld usually be better provided oin brown fielld sites in the towns themselves.
with regard to global warming, it is not the rural economy that is causing the problem, and yes there is NIMBY opposition to wind farms, but there is also rurall NIMBY opposition to new agricultural buildings or new light indutsrial units providing jobs. in my expereince this NIMBY voice often comes loudest from rich commuters with second homes or who have retired to the country from the city, and want it to be a theme park.
the problem is class not geography. If we want wind turbines then all that is necessary is a change to planning laws to give them priority ( and if you reallly want iit to happen, an EI subsidy for farmers to put them up!!)
And i am completely unconvinced that the waste issue can ever be solved for nuclear power.
also... in Lowestoft (small rural / coastal town in Suffolk)they recently (well, a year ago) erected the tallest wind turbine in Europe and everyone absolutely loved it.
It was beautiful. Totally silent, even when going full pelt and really, really well loved. I think people's opposition to wind turbines near where they live is often over estimated, after all, Lowestoft is not the most progressive or Green town in the country!
I can't see English heritage putting up a big fight to preserve the skyloine of Lowestoft.
However, one fallacy of your arguments Reuben is that there is a shortage of new builds in rural area,s whereas the real problem is communities being hollowed out and killed by second home owners, and urban commuters. you characterise rural dwellers as idle drones and eccentrics.
Any sustainable and socialy just economy will require people to live in the countryside to grow food and raise animals, and an ecologically sustainable socialist economy would surely increase the number of people engaged in agriculture.
In the here and now, any move to create social housing in rural areas would entrap people on limited incomes in desperate conditions, with no local bus service, no local shop, no post office and no pub, and if there is a pub you can't bloody smoke in it! And you have to tug your forelock to some arsehole television producer or stock broker who visits their counrty retreat once a month.
Frankly the idea that we can solve the problem of what a God foresaken hell hole London has become is by letting it get even bigger, bursting outside the cordoon sanitaire of the M25 is utterly horrific.
The reason that a sustainable agriculture system would require more human labour is becasue it would use less pesticides and nitrate based fertiliser, and becuae more food would be grown locally.
Add to which that in an economy not based upon commodity productin, people would enjoy creative handicraft and agricultural labour. (This is too complex to argue out in this thread, - i recommend Derek Walls; new book "Beyond babylon" for his discussion on marxist economics and the drive of capitalism towards non sustainble growth.
As an interesting observation, after years of working in engineering, I have only once ever visited a factory in London (A platinum refinery that could not easily be moved)
London has almost not manufacturing, and no agriculture, so there are 6 million people basically selling capuccino coffees to each other, that is not to say that service workers are not working class, but at some point someone has to actuually make something.
Although you are clearly semi joking your idea that the rural population is unproductive only makes sense if you think food growsa in supermarkets.
Nuclear power is the only carbon free source of BASE LOAD power available. There simply are not cheap alternatives.
Wind power can be used, but it is fickle and very expensive considering it's capacity is only 25% of it's rated load.
Nuclear when you go down to it is cheaper AND safer, given basically a good history (3 mile island/Chernobyl aside)...all the new proposed plants are exponentially safter.
The do not take 10 years to build. They are down to 3 years for some Generation III plants. It's time the left reaxamine what is a 25 year old atiquated position.
David Walters
Post a Comment