Earlier this month the government announced the locations of ten new nuclear power stations http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349715.stm I'd have expected greenpeace to be climbing up the outside of the houses of parliament by now... but virtually nothing. What do you think is going on?

Evidently we don't care anymore.

Perhaps the fact that British politicians don't give a flying fuck what the electorate think has sunk in sufficiently to let the aresholes do whatever, whenever with impunity.

There are lots of people that think that nuclear power is green. No CO2 boy. It's always followed by the 'we only have to come up with a solution for the waste'.
I'm an 80s girl, no matter how warm the earth will become if we burn up all the coal in the world I still think it's better than to go out with a power plant meltdown bang. Whilst on holiday in France I read an article about the people that clean nuclear power plants which read like a Dickensian novel: it's not clean and not safe

But I guess Greenpeace is divided over the issue......

Well, apparently not "Onzin! Kernenergie is vuil, onveilig, duur en vooral overbodig. We hebben immers schone en veilige energiebronnen. Greenpeace maakt zich daarom hard voor een wereld zonder kernenergie."
They don't believe the hype and say nuclear power is dirty, unsafe, expensive and unnecessary.

I've always been opposed to Nuclear energy, but I can understand why some people are becoming more inclined to accept it given the terrifying reality of climate change; I still have grave reservations on the grounds of safety and I'm not convinced that it's the solution anyway, given the costs and timescales, but I think that there is a tendency to see it as (potentially) the lesser evil.
Where I do think politicians are culpable is in their half-hearted promotion of (genuine) renewables and their total failure to face up to the need for fundamental change in energy use. And, actually, I believe that's because they are too concerned with what the electorate think: they need to be saying that we have to fly less, drive less, heat our homes less and generally consume less. And they daren't, because they don't believe that voters will vote for anyone who says those things.
And, sadly, they may even be right.

Aha! So it's our fault then?



Happy New Year!

All the reasons FOR nukes were the same 10 years ago... The politicians bottled their chance to get some new nukes lined up in time to replace the ones that as now starting to close.
Also worthy of note is that we're currently having a gas crisis in britain... Thanks in no small part to all those 'dash for gas' (and fuck a miner) gas turbine powerstations we've been increasingly depending on.

I don't think that it's about 'fault' or blame: it's a question of responsibility. And I think that people of our generation (30+)* in the developed world in particular, have a responsibility, because we have enjoyed the lifestyles that have endangered the future of the planet.
I think that it is very unhealthy that politicians (across the whole spectrum) feel that they have to treat us like spoilt children: they can't tell us we need to drive less or fly for fear of alienating 'the motorist' or 'the flying public'. We won't vote for them if they tell us that endlessly continuing economic growth is unsustainable, because that would imply a threat to our living standards, so they soothe us by pretending that we can have our cake and eat it through green technological fixes (which are a good thing, but not enough on their own). Of course the Media also have to take some responsibility, but so do all of us as citizens.
Similar arguments apply to the economy - which is why we are having ridiculous arguments about who uses the c-word (no, not that one - 'cuts') instead of a mature debate about how we sort out the mess we're in.
The most cheering thing I've seen this week was an interview Paxo did with the President of Iceland on 'Newsnight': the Icelandic Government has agreed a treaty with the UK and Netherlands to repay the losses caused by their banks collapsing. Paxman was outraged that the Icelandic President had called a referendum of the Icelandic people to decide whether it should be ratified: their President's argument was that the people were sovereign and it was their decision. That, he said, is democracy.
I'd love to see other governments giving that much power to their people.


*apologies if I'm wrong in assuming that you are indeed over 30.



And also, to be fair, a failure to build sufficient storage capacity because we were so complacent about the stuff under the North Sea.

You are correct in that assumption.
Wrt Iceland, though I'm certainly not an expert in Icelandic politics it sounded to me like a politician selectively waving the flag for people power when he was confident the people would vote the way that best suited him.

I thought everyone on here knew that Martyn was only 21...






























and has been for a number of years now!

Well, I don't know much (anything) about Icelandic politics either, but it sounded like the opposite to me.... he seemed to be saying 'well it's up to the voters' (who of course will have to actually stump up the money)... and I thought that was commendable.




Yes, but that photo has a sort of ageless quality, doesn't it? Could be 17, could be 70....

Why is everybody saying they're not an expert on Icelandic politics Do you think we expect you to be experts in Icelandic politics??????

I've been to Iceland, many many times and believe it or not, I am indeed an expert on Iceland. They have frozen peas at £1.79, frozen potato waffles at two boxes for £2.99, and a fantastic 2 for 1 deal on Malteser ice cream lollies. Mmmmmmmmm.....

I agree with your comment, JonD. I agree somewhat with JBoyd's comment too in that at least the Prime Minister has handed the decision to the Icelandic people regarding whether Icesave bank do eventually pay the foreigners the money (is it 4 billion euro?), which is indeed commendable.

However, there is a more basic reason why he has done this. If he hadn't exercised his right to over-rule the Icelandic parliament and invite a referendum then the payments would have been made and Iceland would be more in the doo-doo. Isn't it significant that one in four of the population signed a petition opposing the payment before he made his decision? Remember, this bloke had one decision to make; agree with parliament and pay the money, or agree to holding a referendum. The former makes him unpopular with the country and places the country into further economic turmoil, the latter sees him as a people's man, whilst getting the reult he and the country wants.

Now, I know nothing about Icelandic politics , but I'd put my house on the people voting against the parliament's decision to pay Britain and Holland 4 billion euros. I'm not saying it's right, but I think that's what will happen.

Not much to do with Nuclear power though...

And Paxman, isn't he the one that said the only difference between Iceland and Ireland is one letter and 6 months? Ha ha ha ha flipping ha. Egotistical self-centred ninkompoop.

Iceland has geothermal power plants. Now that IS something to cheer about.

Now gimme back my money

FWIW: our government paid the money owed by that bank back to the people, so now it's my money too.

You're not Kerry Katona by any chance, are you?



I'm sure there is an element of populism about this, and maybe it will leave Britain and Holland without their money, but as you say, at least he's putting the people into a position where they get a say and take responsibility for the outcome.
And it wouldn't be a bad thing if this made a repeat of the whole fiasco less likely.