The Socialist 25 May 2006 Time to stand up to NHS cuts! Education bill - Labour depends on Tory support Step up the Campaign for a New Workers' Party The political landscape in London after the local elections Unite against sectarianism in Northern ireland Bobby Sands Nothing but an Unfinished Song Postal workers call for action Brazil: 'War' erupts in São Paulo Appeal for solidarity with Venezuelan workers |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Home | The Socialist 25 May 2006 | Join the Socialist Party What we think Say no to nuclear powerTONY BLAIR pre-empted his own government's energy review, and announced to his big- business friends in the CBI that he intends to replace Britain's nuclear power stations with new ones. His declaration forms part of a reversed international trend. With people's consciousness fading on the worst nuclear accidents, like that of Three Mile Island in 1979 in the US and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, 16 governments have presently got proposals to build 107 new civil reactors. They include the US, which has not built a new nuclear plant for over 30 years. Their primary motive is to help satisfy their own industrial and service energy needs, in a world where fossil fuels are a finite resource with fluctuating prices and huge supply instability due to world economic and political turmoil. The UK became a net energy importer two years ago, so UK big business now fears its vulnerability to the chaotic world energy market. This is especially so following Russia's gas dispute with the Ukraine which temporarily disrupted supply to the rest of Europe. As well as the passage of time since Chernobyl, pro-nuclear government propaganda is helped considerably by people's concern over global warming, as nuclear energy produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than do fossil fuels. The need to reduce the contribution to global warming played by fossil fuels is indisputable. Research is showing that it is also extremely urgent. For instance, a recent study reported that a record area of the Arctic Ocean failed to freeze during the winter just passed. However, the government-initiated Sustainable Development Commission, that opposes new nuclear stations, has calculated that even if existing nuclear capacity is replaced and doubled, then the resulting reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would only be 8%. This is very low, considering that climate change scientists estimate a reduction of 80% is necessary! But in any case, there is no level of emissions reduction that would justify new nuclear stations, because nuclear power - in its present form of nuclear fission - is a massive environmental hazard. The statistical chance of accidents may be small, but when they do occur, minor incidents can be very serious and major ones devastating to humans and the environment. The radiation from Chernobyl spread thousands of miles and has an effect spanning generations. As nuclear energy has been privatised in Britain, this increases the chances of accidents, as nuclear bosses will be tempted to cut corners to maximise their profits. Dangerous wasteThen there is the huge problem of dangerous nuclear waste. This is transported and stored above ground at 34 locations in Britain at present and there is no known way of making it safe for the thousands of years it will remain highly reactive. There is also the possibility of terrorists attacking a nuclear installation or obtaining and using nuclear material. Nuclear substances have gone missing in many countries. What is necessary, is not continued use of nuclear power, but the rapid development of safe, renewable energy sources, such as wind, waves and the sun. While these are being developed, there is also great scope for energy efficiency measures and new technologies such as carbon capture and storage technologies, if resources are applied to them. Renewable energy production was once largely dismissed by the top capitalist scientists and politicians, but today is regarded as a contributing energy source. Even Blair's government intends to increase power generation from renewable sources to 20% of total energy used. It is also true that much of the capitalist media is unsure on the nuclear option. Some commentators rightly point out that the true cost of nuclear power is deliberately masked and that there is increasing evidence that renewable sources are cheaper as well as much safer. However, under capitalism, energy policy will never be developed to meet the needs of the majority of people in society and a sustainable environment, but will be primarily to satisfy the needs of big business and private profit. Margaret Thatcher ran down the coal industry to counter the miners' power as a highly organised workforce, and today Blair makes decisions to satisfy his friends in the nuclear industry and the relatively short-term sights and interests of British capitalism as a whole. Renewable energySocialists have to demand the closing down of nuclear plants and a massive programme of investment into renewable energy resources and the safest ways of disposing of nuclear plant and waste. We demand that no workers in the nuclear industry are made redundant or given new jobs on worse pay and conditions. There will be plenty of work needed on the decommissioning of plants and on alternative energy generation. It is also essential that all the energy industries are taken into public ownership, so that an integrated energy programme can be created to provide cheap and safe energy for all. This needs to be part of a democratic and socialist plan of production that can satisfy the needs of everyone today, as well as safeguarding the planet for future generations. In this issue Socialist Party NHS campaign Education
Environment: Nuclear power Campaign for a New Workers Party
London
Northern Ireland
Socialist Party workplace news
International socialist news and analysis
|
Related links:
| |||||||||||||||
Google search the site
Printable version
email to friend
