Blair set to hit the nuclear button 23 November 05

Speculation has been rising in recent days that Tony Blair is set to back nuclear power as ‘the’ solution to the UK’s problem of rising CO2 emissions, a prospect viewed with horror by the environmental lobby. I’ve argued elsewhere that we need to have all options on the table – including some new-build nuclear power – if carbon emissions are ever to be brought down to tolerable levels, and I don’t want to rehearse all the arguments here. But I’m now filled with dread about the prospect, not so much because it means more radioactive waste and so on, but because it could prove to be an almighty distraction to climate change campaigners. With some in the green movement, like James Lovelock, openly backing nuclear power, this could provoke a bitter split. Moreover, if the energies of climate campaigners are diverted from mobilising popular support on global warming into trying to stop nuclear power, this will be an enormous step backwards. In any case, it’s far from clear that the British people will accept any more nuclear power plants – even if the government could afford the hefty price tag.

Most important of all in my view is the urgent need to get the political framework sorted out at the international and the domestic level. Globally this means Contraction and Convergence to be introduced following the end of Kyoto’s first ‘commitment period’ in 2012, and nationally some form of carbon rationing soon after. Technology is a distraction from the need to set up this target-based framework: let’s agree on who’s going to make the emissions cuts and by when, and then the market can evolve to bring in low-carbon technologies. Maybe this will include nuclear, maybe it won’t. Ultimately no single energy source can be a magic bullet to replace the bonanaza of cheap oil and gas: that was a one-time gift to humanity from the geological past. Energy restrictions will define our future, and it’s time we got used to it.