Mr Benn and the DBERR Men

We had a petition on the 10 Downing St petition board, asking for action on Climate Change. Hilary Benn, Sec of State for the Environment, kindly wrote back in response, saying that Britain leads the world, and we should all try harder. I have just responded to him:

Dear Mr Benn

I have been conducting a correspondence with HMG, over the last two years on climate change, and the Government’s role in seeking international agreement on a post-2012 climate change framework is, I am sorry to say, not impressive. The UK negotiators are putting forward no concrete framework for nations to work towards, are waiting passively for something to turn up, and even worse, are setting a precondition of action of 100% participation of all parties. This is not leadership, simply a recipe for failure.

I am sorry to say that your claim to be showing leadership on how we can build the low carbon economy is at odds with the facts. Germany has 100 times more photovoltaic roof installations than the UK, has better standards of property insulation, has many more wind turbines, and is generally forging ahead far more quickly than the UK. The UK renewables subsidy budget is under spent, and yet the support for installations was cut by up to 2/3rds in the Spring. I know, I lost out to the tune of £5000. I went ahead and fitted the PV anyway, because of the carbon savings, but with an unpleasant feeling of resentment towards Government. It is simply not true to say that the UK Government is showing leadership.

You claim that the Climate Change Bill will make the UK the first country in the world to put our commitment to reduce emissions by at least 60% on the statute book, but at the same time we read of civil servants at DBERR are advising how to spin the CO2 targets since we are going to fail, and they are even trying to reclassify nuclear as a renewable resource, which it most certainly is not.

You will see from this that we do not feel that that the UK takes its responsibilities for reducing global emissions seriously.

I have been doing my best to reduce my individual energy use for the past 30 years, but it is very difficult in the framework that Government provides. To give but one example, I cycle 4 miles to work, but I have no cycle lanes, whether tangible or notional, and it is very difficult to persuade my patients (I am a GP) to follow my example. If the MPs who backed the Road Traffic Reduction Bill when in opposition had maintained their commitment when they moved into Government, we might be in a better position.

I am sorry to have to write in this vein. I know that you are a decent man who wants to make things better, but the response you wrote to our petition did not do the trick. You will have to fight very hard indeed in Government against the forces of denial and reaction if the Government of which you are a member is to gain the respect of the Green movement.

Gavin Esler Newsnight Science Blunder

I have just logged a complaint with Newsnight in protest at Gavin
Esler's question to the Greenpeace spokesman tonight (23rd October).

Esler asked "Is there any science that would make you accept nuclear power?"

That was a meaningless question.

Comprehension of the physics of nuclear power is a matter of science,
and I have no doubt that the Greenpeace spokesman was as competent as he
needed to be in his grasp of the science of nuclear power.

Acceptance or rejection of nuclear power is not a matter of science, it
is a matter of political judgement, and as a political programme Newnight
should know that.

It is a matter of balancing up risks and benefits. Some of these, such
as causation of cancer and leukaemia by internal radiation from ingested
radionuclides are indeed matters of science. Others, such as the
likelihood of a nuclear power station being hit by al Quaeda, are a
matter that can only be decided on by speculation.

So acceptance or rejection of nuclear power is a matter of judgement,
comprising many factors. The case against nuclear power has many
components, including questions such as the limited amount of high grade
uranium, the question of nuclear weapons proliferation, the lack of
meaningful insurance for nuclear power stations, the health effects of
radionuclides, the vulnerability of nuclear power stations to terrorist
attack, their vulnerability to sea level rise, the waste problem, and
the economic effect of sucking funds away from energy efficiency and
renewables.

How can "science" in the abstract, as presented by Gavin Esler, overcome
that case? The question was in the same category as "Have you stopped
beating your wife?" since it is designed simply to put the interviewee
in a bad light, as holding an unscientific view.

To show that I, as an example of an antinuclear campaigner of many years
standing am not absolutist about the matter, I can say that I would be
prepared to accept nuclear power, despite the above objections, if it
could be shown that a new generation of stations could neutralise and
make safe all the plutonium and other fissile materials in the world's
nuclear weapons stocks. But that it not a question "science", it is a
matter of political will.

The use of this question puts Newsnight in a bad light. An apology is
called for, or if not an apology, then a new programme, to set the
nuclear power and weapons debate fairly in the framework of the
political framework that favours nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

This might even happen if loads of people send email to: newsnight@bbc.co.uk