Greens and nuclear energy, part 2: Who else?

Where does the green movement stand on nuclear energy? An internal debate has opened up, and several influential environmentalists now argue that more nuclear energy is needed to combat global warming. Who’s said what?

Sizewell B nuclear power station.	(British Energy)
Commissioned in 1995, Sizewell B was the last nuclear power station built in the UK.

In the first installment of this two-part post, “Greens and nuclear energy, part 1: Monbiot debates Porritt”, I looked at how George Monbiot’s recent remarks have drawn attention to the environmental movement’s internal debate on nuclear energy.

Monbiot hasn’t gone “pro-nuclear” – his position has evolved from hostility to agnosticism, not support – but he isn’t alone in questioning the green movement’s outright rejection of nuclear energy. The last four years have seen several influential environmentalists come out in favour of nuclear power. In this second installment of a two-part post, I’ll look at the the green movement’s emerging debate about nuclear energy.

Twenty or thirty years ago, opposition to nuclear energy was one of the defining attributes of green politics. A pro-nuclear environmentalist was an oxymoron. Then global warming, and the need for low-carbon energy, forced a rethink. Several respected campaigners in environmental politics now advocate an expanded role for nuclear energy. Others won’t back it but stop short of opposing it.

Who are they, and what are they saying? Here’s a short rundown.

James Lovelock

James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, has been a consistent advocate of nuclear energy as a means of reducing carbon emissions ^[1], although he has recently moved on to the gloomier view that climate catastrophe has become inevitable ^[2]. In this newspaper article in 2004, he explains why he supports nuclear energy:

By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. [...] Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. [...] But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.

James Lovelock,
The Independent, May 24, 2004 ^[1]

The late Rt. Rev. Hugh Montefiore was a trustee of Friends of the Earth from 1983 until he was forced out in 2004. He was asked to leave when he decided to write in favour of nuclear energy. This is an extract from the article ^[3]:

Hugh Montefiore

I’ve been a Friends of the Earth trustee for 20 years, but I am told it is incompatible with being pro nuclear energy.
[...]

As a theologian, I believe that we have a duty to play our full part in safeguarding the future of our planet, and I have been a committed environmentalist for many years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.

This belief, and my wish to make it clear in this article, has led me to sever my ties with the campaign group Friends of the Earth. I have been a trustee of Friends of the Earth for 20 years and when I told my fellow trustees that I wished to write on nuclear energy, I was told that this is not compatible with being a trustee. I have therefore resigned because no alternative was open to me. The future of the planet is more important than membership of Friends of the Earth.

Hugh Montefiore,
The Independent, October 22, 2004 ^[3]

In this BBC interview, Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth explains his decision to expel Montefiore:

FoE director Tony Juniper said the group could no longer work with Rt Rev Montefiore, who is retired but is still an honorary bishop in the diocese of Southwark.
…
“The organisation is very happy to have internal debates about policies, but in practical terms, if you have two people from the organisation saying different things, they’re not going to have much impact.”

BBC News,
October 22, 2004 ^[4]

In Juniper’s view, the nuclear debate had to stay “internal”, and the organisation needed a “one voice, one message”  discipline. A public debate about nuclear energy was still out of the question.

That started to change the following year, when Stewart Brand and Jared Diamond both spoke out in support of nuclear energy as a way to combat global warming.

Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, had this to say:

Stewart Brand

Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.
[...]
Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all, the one that trumps everything: global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and on civilization will be a universal permanent disaster.
[...]
So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. [...] The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.

Stewart Brand,
Environmental Heresies, May 2005 ^[5]

Jared Diamond

Prof. Jared Diamond, author of “Collapse” and “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, expressed similar views, here at a lecture attended by Brand himself ^[6]:

During a public lecture in San Francisco last month, Jared Diamond, the mega-selling author of Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest and most prominent environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear power as a necessary response to global warming.

Addressing an overflow crowd at the Cowell Theater about why some societies fail and others don’t (the theme of his most recent book, Collapse), Diamond three times cited global warming as a threat that could ruin modern civilization. During the question period, he was asked if he agreed with Stewart Brand, whose Long Now Foundation was sponsoring the lecture, that global warming posed such a grave threat that humanity had to embrace nuclear power. It was a delicate moment, for Brand, the former editor of The Whole Earth Catalogue , was on stage with Diamond.

“I did not know that Stewart Brand said that,” Diamond replied. “But yes, to deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power.” Nuclear, he added, should simply be “done carefully, like they do in France, where there have been no accidents.”

“I did not expect that answer,” Brand said.

Neither, it seemed, did much of the audience. Overwhelmingly white and affluent, they had nodded reverentially at everything Diamond had said thus far – about the self-destructiveness of ancient civilizations that leveled forests (Easter Island) or eroded soils (the Mayans) in pursuit of short-term gain, about the need for America to rethink its “core value” of consumerism if it hopes to survive. They had clapped when Diamond mocked President Bush’s see-no-evil approach to environmental protection.

Yet now here was Diamond urging an expansion of nuclear power, a technology most environmentalists regard as irredeemably evil.

“Deal with it,” crowed Brand as the crowd sat in stunned silence.

Mark Hertsgaard,
CommonDreams.org, August 12, 2005 ^[6]

Tim Flannery Image: Mark Coulson

Prof. Tim Flannery was named Australian of the Year 2007 for his environmental writing and campaigning. In his recent book The Weather Makers, (the following extract is from The Sydney Morning Herald ^[7]), he goes through the pros and cons of nuclear energy in a fairly non-committal way. There’s certainly no sense of any strong pro-nuclear advocacy:

It’s often said that the sun is nuclear energy at a safe distance. In this era of climate crisis, however, the role of Earth-based nuclear power is being reassessed, and what was until recently a dying technology may yet create its own day in the sun.

Tim Flannery,
The Sydney Morning Herald, September 26, 2005 ^[7]

Flannery’s position altered rather unexpectedly a year later, when he spoke out in favour of nuclear energy, and suggested that Australia should “embrace” it:

It would be a “noble act” if Australia embraced nuclear power, which could be generated more safely than coal-fired electricity, one of Australia’s leading scientists and climate experts claims. [...] “Climate change is so catastrophic and imminent that only nuclear power can save us,” he said.
[...]
But he says the technology to create safe, clean nuclear power is available and the Federal Government should embrace it. “If Australia were to switch from coal to nuclear power, we would make only a small reduction (about 1 per cent) in global carbon dioxide pollution. But it would be a noble act, for our carbon dioxide pollution is devastating the entire world.”

Ben Doherty,
The Age, August 5, 2006 ^[8]

Australia has a low population density and extensive geothermal, solar and wind resources, so it’s not an obvious candidate for a nuclear energy programme. Tim Flannery’s view that Australia should adopt nuclear power seemed slightly eccentric. He backtracked from this opinion the following year, explaining that nuclear may be suitable for some countries, but not for Australia:

The Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, has rejected the use of nuclear power in Australia, reversing his position that electricity could be generated using uranium with less risk to the environment than that posed by coal.
[...] he said nuclear energy might have a role to play in some countries but Australia’s wealth of renewable energy ruled it out here.

Wendy Frew,
The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 2007 ^[9]

I’ll wind up this list by moving closer to home (that’s the UK), and right up to date.

Mark Lynas is a climate author and campaigner. His book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet won the 2008 Royal Society Prize for Science Books.

Mark Lynas

While George Monbiot has adjusted his position on nuclear energy rather gradually, Lynas has moved more quickly and decisively. He has gone beyond a grudging acceptance of nuclear energy, and moved to a position of explicit advocacy. As recently as January 2008, in “Why Britain doesn’t need nuclear power” ^[10] he wrote “Nuclear power is fine in principle, but it is not a priority for us.”

By August, and after George Monbiot had made the controversial comments covered in my previous blog post, he had taken a “stronger position” than Monbiot. In “How nuclear power can save the planet” ^[11] he wrote:

Hansen is a self-declared “agnostic” on nuclear power, a topic which recently landed the writer George Monbiot in hot water when he admitted in his Guardian environment column that he “no longer cared” if nuclear power was part of the answer. The article upset many in the environmental movement. I would take a stronger position myself: that increased use of nuclear (an outright competitor to coal as a deliverer of baseload power) is essential to combat climate change, but clearly there need to be some significant technical advances in nuclear fission if it is to become acceptable to many in the west.

Mark Lynas,
New Statesman, August 14, 2008 ^[11]

A month later he went further still, writing “Why greens must learn to love nuclear power” ^[12]:

[...] how are we going to provide for our energy needs in a way that does not destroy, via global warming, the capacity of our planet to support life? The hard truth is that if nuclear power is not at least part of the answer, then answering that challenge is going to be very difficult indeed.

Unfortunately, just by writing the sentence above, I will already have prompted many readers to switch off. Being anti-nuclear is an article of faith (and I use that word intentionally) for many people in today’s environmental movement and beyond, just as it was during the 1970s. That the Green Party, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have held the same position on the subject for 30 years could show admirable consistency – but it could also be evidence of dogmatic closed-mindedness.
[...]
The question is this: are those who care about global warming prepared to reconsider their opposition to nuclear power in this new era? We are no longer living in the 1970s. Today, the world is more threatened even than it was during the Cold War. Only this time nuclear power – instead of being part of the problem – can be part of the solution.

Mark Lynas,
New Statesman, September 18, 2008 ^[12]

Where Are We Now?

In response to the challenge of global warming, some leading environmentalists have had a radical change of heart about nuclear energy, first moving from outright opposition to a position of agnostic equivocation, and then to unambiguous whole-hearted advocacy.

But this shift in thinking has come from individuals, not organisations. The key environmental groups – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party – remain steadfast in their opposition to nuclear energy. It seems unlikely that the whole environmental movement can move together on this issue, one way or the other. For groups such as Greenpeace, their anti-nuclear stance is a raison d’être.

The way these emerging internal divisions play out will surely influence the political acceptability of new nuclear build in the UK. It may well shape the timescale and size of any new nuclear energy programme. The outcome looks rather difficult to predict.

Update: Tindale, Smith and Goodall

Updated July 27, 2009

Lord Chris Smith

In February 2009 four U.K. environmentalists brought out a joint statement in support of nuclear power. They included Mark Lynas; Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency and Chris Goodall, a prospective Green Party parliamentary candidate.

Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today.
[...]
They all take the view that the building of nuclear power stations is now imperative and that to delay the process with time-consuming public inquiries and legal challenges would seriously undermine Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
[...]
The four leading environmentalists who are now lobbying in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.
[...]
None of the four was in favour of nuclear power a decade ago, but recent scientific evidence of just how severe climate change may become as a result of the burning of oil, gas and coal in conventional power stations has transformed their views.
[...]
The four will now join the ranks of those like Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government and now director of the Smith Centre in Oxford, who was sceptical about nuclear power until he was presented with data on the scale of the climate-change problem.

Steve Connor,
The Independent, February 23, 2009 ^[13]

Chris Goodall

Mark Lynas had expressed pro-nuclear views earlier, but Stephen Tindale had been strongly anti-nuclear throughout his time with Greenpeace.

Chris Goodall, a Green Party parliamentary candidate, ran into immediate difficulties with the party:

A Green Party parliamentary candidate is facing disciplinary action after calling for the reintroduction of nuclear power, which is strictly against party policy.

Chris Goodall, prospective parliamentary candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon, upset many party members with his assertion in yesterday’s Independent that atomic energy has a role to play in the fight against climate change.
[...]
Mr Goodall’s remarks had left many party members “seriously concerned”, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, MEP, said last night. [...]

The matter would be dealt with by the party’s regional council, after speaking to Mr Goodall directly, she said. Asked if this would include disciplinary action and possibly even de-selection as a candidate, Ms Lucas would only say: “We will be taking appropriate measures.”

Michael McCarthy,
The Independent, February 24, 2009 ^[14]

References

1. James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution, James Lovelock, The Independent, May 24, 2004
2. James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years, James Lovelock, The Independent, January 16, 2006
3. Hugh Montefiore: We need nuclear power to save the planet from looming catastrophe, Hugh Montefiore, The Independent, October 22, 2004
4. ‘Nuclear’ bishop quits campaign, BBC News, October 22, 2004
5. Environmental Heresies, Stewart Brand, Technology Review, May 2005
6. Nukes Aren’t Green, Mark Hertsgaard, CommonDreams.org, August 12, 2005
7. Nuclear future, Tim Flannery, The Sydney Morning Herald, September 26, 2005 (extract from The Weather Makers: The History & Future Impact of Climate Change, T. Flannery, 2005)
8. Nuclear way to go: Flannery, Ben Doherty, The Age, August 5, 2006
9. Nuclear power a turn-off: Flannery changes stance, Wendy Frew, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 2007
10. Why Britain doesn’t need nuclear power, Mark Lynas, New Statesman, January 17, 2008
11. How nuclear power can save the planet, Mark Lynas, New Statesman, August 14, 2008
12. Why greens must learn to love nuclear power, Mark Lynas, New Statesman, September 18, 2008
13. Nuclear power? Yes please…, Steve Connor, The Independent, February 23, 2009
14. Pro-nuclear Green candidate faces axe, Michael McCarthy, The Independent, February 24, 2009

 < Edit July 27, 2009:  Add Update on Feb. 23 statement by Tindale, Smith, Lynas and Goodall. >