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."
