GET ACTIVE
Watch Coalfinger
Watch our 007 spoof Coalfinger and share it with your friends to spread the word about the menace of coal.
A personal account of the government's nuclear consultation
Posted by jamie on 12 September 2007.
The government's public consultation on the future of nuclear power in this country - part of its shambolic energy review - was held on Saturday, but no one from Greenpeace was there. Along with several other organisations, we withdrew from the process as its become clear it's just another stitch-up in the government's attempts to force nuclear power on us.
However, Meg - 35 and a sales assistant from Cardiff - was there. Yesterday, she posted a comment about the experience on this site. I thought it deserved a wider audience than it would get tagged onto the bottom of an earlier story, so I've reprinted it in full here. The government is due to publish some of the polling results from the consultation tomorrow - can't wait to see what it says. Take it away, Meg.
* * *
"As one of the mere 1000 people selected for this consultation I was very pleased I had spent some time on your website before the day, but was sorry to see that Greenpeace had chosen to withdraw altogether from the process.
"We were told numerous times that we didn't need to know anything before we came to the event. It became quickly clear that the intention was to provide us with very limited, biased information in order to lead the participants to a predetermined conclusion. I was lucky to have some alternative information under my belt, but most people felt it was biased and even those who agreed with me believed nuclear power to be a foregone conclusion. The questions were very leading and I could almost see them forming a prime minster's pro-nuclear power speech.
"The question of whether the stations would be built in time to address the 'power gap' was carefully avoided.
"In Cardiff, however, we were lucky enough to have been shown two short clips of Greenpeace's representative as the new Greenpeace-free tape had not reached us in time. Small as it was, this contribution at least showed a tiny bit of opposition to the main cause of the day. I am sorry other groups did not get to see it.
"Alternatives to nuclear power were presented as: Coal and Gas (dirty CO2 emitters) and renewables in the form of wind and wave power (expensive - no mention of the expense of nuclear!). CHP was referred to in one line of one of many factsheets read to us, saying it was explained in a further reference sheet which we did not receive. I asked for that sheet and the main emphasis of the information was the set up costs of CHP.
"The event was held in a windowless, therefore heavily lit, heated hotel room. A video projector ran all day. Any emphasis on energy saving was not represented in practice.
"It was an interesting day, to become aware of others' opinions on such subjects and I think my voice encouraged at least one to look at your site but I am very afraid that in the end we could make very little difference on that occasion.
"However, it became clear there was much scope on my table of 10 for discussion on renewables, sustainable living, recycling and taking personal responsibility. I think the country is ripe for a change in its thinking. Everyone felt an emphasis on effective education could make a huge difference.
"It also became clear that this discussion was geared to whether the government should be allowing private companies the OPTION of building these plants. If the government do insist on pursuing this option, is there anything we can do to dissuade the companies? There's still a chance, with financial arguments or consumer moves towards sustainable options, that they may choose not to go that way."
Nuclear Consultation: The Con Is On
Like Meg, I also had the great mispleasure of attending the Talking Energy public consultation. Many of the concerns were mirrored by myself and many others at the Newcastle event.
Going in with an open mind, I neither agreed or disagreed with the proposed expansion of nuclear energy in this country. Generally speaking, I had very little background knowledge of the implications that implenting nuclear energy had for our country and future generations. I had expected to take part in a balanced debate, being given the opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of not only nuclear power but other energy sources to formulate my own opinion.
Instead, I was presented with a biased/ heavily unbalanced argument. I felt like we (the 1000 people being "consulted" about this very important issue) were not contributing to this very important debate in the slightest; it felt like the decision had already been made. Questions such as "what reassurances would you like regarding nuclear power?" certainly suggested that the government were merely looking for a method of marketing this effectively to the public. Neither was it explained why nuclear power was the way forward as opposed to other options: it was said that renewable methods were more expensive but as pointed out by Meg, building power stations is hardly cheap!
Furthermore, our discussion group (of approx 10 people) raised questions about waste, safety, security and cost but were presented with gravely inadequate answers. With the information presented, myself and others felt like we were being misled and manipulated. Satistics were used sparingly and distinctly vague statements were used to describe what was really being planned. The arguments presented were incredibly weak and one sided.
I left the event feeling bewildered and somewhat disgusted. What exactly had just unfolded before me? That evening I contacted my local MP, Phil Willis (Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) and will be speaking to him in person on Friday 21 September. I would encourage all to do the same because popular pressure needs to bring the government into account for this shameful attempt to mislead the public. The issue NEEDS informed debate.
I've also created a Facebook group at http://hull.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5176013413 entitled 'Nuclear Energy: What is the Government hiding?'
Get involved before it's to late and educate those you know to make them aware of this crucial issue in the Climate Change debate!!!!
Channel 4 news piece
wanderer99, thanks for this - it's fascinating stuff. We also had another letter (pdf) from another disgruntled "consultee", echoing both of your concerns.
I don't know if you saw the Channel 4 piece last night - it's well worth a watch (and quotes from letters people have written to us) - it's on the Channel 4 website for the next week or so. And Nathan, a nukes campaigner, has put down his thoughts about the whole sorry consultation exercise here.
Bex
gpuk
PS Great Facebook group :0)
another place to look and complain
This is the official consultation website:
http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk
There you can see for yourselves all the documents with which we were provided. Note that the 'reference sheets', which offer by far the most balanced information, were not made available to us during the consultation although I requested to see them at the end.
Still CHP was only referred to for half a page, with reference made to its expense.
It is also of concern to me how late they left the public event, revealing very little futher information until afterwards, only 1 month before the close of the consultation period.
I haven't had much time at all to look at the site but I also found an address to write and complain about the conduct of the consultation(same page as the 'code of conduct' for consultations):
DTI Consultation Coordinator
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
Send him lots of letters!!
Meg
More comments from the consultation
Thanks Meg - ever thought of becoming a campaigner???
We've also received an email from Janet Toye who was at the London consultation. She copied us in on a letter she wrote the following day to the Guardian which unfortunately wasn't published but she's kindly agreed to let us publish it here:
I was one of those who took part in Saturday’s consultation from which green groups pulled out (7.9.07). 200 plus attended the meeting in London.
It was explicit throughout that the Government is already strongly persuaded in favour of nuclear power. The material provided came entirely from them. The main question we were asked to answer was whether the private energy sector should be given the option of building nuclear power stations.
There were 22 groups. My group, while having a majority prepared to answer yes to the question, did so with considerable reservations. Doubts expressed by this and other groups included anxiety that action on energy efficiency and investment in renewables would be neglected once a commitment was made to nuclear. There were also strong concerns expressed on all the safety issues, worries about the tax payer having to bail out the private sector, and doubts about the competence of the private sector. While the material provided referred briefly to the views of those opposed to future nuclear development, we wanted information and arguments from those organisations in equivalent detail to what the Government had provided. The most surprising and disappointing omission was anything from the Sustainable Development Commission who, according to the notes, ‘argue that it would be possible to develop a sustainable energy policy without nuclear’.
So this meeting certainly did not give a clear endorsement for the future development of nuclear power. If the form of the consultation was intended to encourage a resounding yes vote it did not achieve it.
Yours faithfully
Janet Toye
web editor
gpuk
Our executive director on the consultation
Here.
Bex
gpuk