Charlie Kronick, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said:

"We're very much looking forward to Gordon Brown being Prime Minister. Especially because, if he's serious about tackling climate change, he'll have to dump many of Blair's plans for catastrophic climate policies.

"Firstly, to prove he's going to really act on global warming, Brown will have to ditch Blair's plans for new coal-fired power stations. It's unbelievable that there are plans for these ridiculously inefficient carbon-belching dinosaurs in this day and age.

"Then he'll have to boot Blair's new nuclear power stations into touch. Nuclear power is eye-wateringly expensive and is a dangerous distraction from really tackling climate change.

"Brown will also have to abandon Blair's climate wrecking scheme for airport expansion. The growth in air travel will send carbon emissions soaring, and Brown must act to halt this impending disaster."

For more information, conatct the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Reacting to today's G8 agreement on climate change, Greenpeace UK director John Sauven said:

"George Bush's final gift to Blair falls short of what was needed to protect the climate. An agreement without targets is barely worth the paper it's written on."

He continued: "Bush says the US will 'seriously consider' substantial long term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but that's like saying aid to Africa is a good thing then refusing to actually commit to donating a single dollar."

He added:

"Scientists tell us we need to slash emissions over the next decade if we're to have a chance of preventing dangerous climate change. This document acknowledges the seriousness of the situation then ducks reality by offering weasel words like 'seriously considering', as if this was an after dinner discussion rather than the most important issue facing the world."

The document can be read here (pdf). 

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office – 0207 865 8255

Responding to the news of Tony Blair’s resignation as leader of the Labour party, Greenpeace's climate change manager Charlie Kronick said:

"Tony Blair's performance on a national level has made a mockery of his claims to global leadership on the issue of climate change. Emissions of carbon dioxide are higher now than in 1997, and the government has not shown anywhere near the sustained commitment to renewable energy and energy efficiency that this country needs.

"He has tried to bounce the country into accepting a new generation of nuclear power stations without a proper public consultation, which is only now being partially undertaken after the intervention of the high court. What's more, this government's aviation policy is madness, providing for an unrestrained growth in flights and airports - the fastest growing source of international carbon emissions. For all the soaring international rhetoric, it is Blair's weak performance at home that has brought his legacy bumping down to earth."

For more information contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.

Greenpeace volunteers have scaled a crane next to Big Ben and hung a huge banner from it declaring 'TONY [heart] WMD'.

The protest comes as MPs prepare to vote tomorrow on whether to renew Britain's nuclear weapons system and commit Britain to nuclear arms for the next 50 years. The four volunteers aim to occupy the crane until the vote takes place. They hope to telephone as many MPs as possible urging them not to support new weapons of mass destruction.

One of the volunteers on the crane, Cat Dorey, said: "Trident is a cold war relic designed to destroy Russian cities. If MPs buckle under pressure from Tony Blair and vote to renew it, the repercussions will be felt around the world. We can't oppose proliferation of WMD if we're building them at home."

She continued: "The government promised a national debate on Trident but this is being rushed through quicker than a shotgun wedding. The real threat is climate change and the billions earmarked for Trident could help make Britain the world's first low carbon economy. We're phoning MPs from the crane and asking them to respect the will of the country and vote against Tony Blair's WMD programme."

A recent poll commissioned by Channel Four found that three quarters of the public oppose government replacing Trident now.

A report from Greenpeace released last week estimated the true cost of building a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace Trident will be at least £76bn and could rise as high as £100 billion. These figures contrast starkly with the £15-20bn figure the government has previously stated will be the cost of Trident replacement. The report details how government has spun the figures by only including the design and building costs of the submarines and not the far higher price of maintaining and developing the nuclear weapons system over its lifetime.

The campaign to oppose new nuclear weapons systems has received support across the political spectrum.

Kofi Annan says of Tony Blair's policy: "They should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty."

Former shadow defence secretary Michael Ancram says: "The threat of using nuclear weapons is not only illogical but incredible& the need for genuinely independent alternative and flexible non-nuclear deterrence is if anything greater."

Professor Stephen Hawking says: "To replace Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction. It would also be a waste of money because there are no circumstances in which we would use it independently."

Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog said in London recently: "Britain cannot expect other countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons if it upgrades its trident nuclear weapons system."

Photo and video available
Greenpeace press office 07801 212967 / 0207 865 8255

The government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was today declared to be unlawful in the High Court.

The government will have to conduct a new, fuller review if they want to justify the future of nuclear power in the UK.

In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Sullivan agreed with Greenpeace, who brought the case, that the energy review was not the 'fullest public consultation' the government had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.

Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available by the Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".

The court had heard last week that the government failed to present clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste and financial costs. Greenpeace and other groups were also denied the opportunity to comment on relevant documents which the government failed to disclose.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a sham, and we're pleased that the Judge has agreed with us.

"The government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.

"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change as it only represents 3.6 per cent of our total energy. It's entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective, safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs and cut climate change emissions. 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut C02 emissions by 4 per cent. As well as being too little, it will also be too late. Climate wrecking emissions need to be cut now, not in 20 years."

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change:

• 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut the UK's C02 emissions by 4 per cent. This would be wiped out by the predicted rise in aircraft emissions alone.
• New nuclear power is not a relevant or timely response to the immediate need to reduce C02 emissions. Any nuclear new build programme would not see the first reactor come online until around 2018 at the earliest, with the main delivery of the programme not arriving until around 2025-2030. C02 emissions need to be cut years before.
• Nuclear power's effect on C02 emissions is very small. Although nuclear power currently provides about 20% of our electricity (reactor problems regularly reduce this), it only provides 3.6 per cent of the UK's total energy.
• Nuclear power stations only marginally address hot water and central heating needs, and don't meet needs for transport at all.
• There is no safe solution to nuclear waste.
• There is a much cheaper, better way to meet our energy needs and cut C02 emissions. A decentralised energy system will slash C02 and cost far less than a new generation of nuclear power stations, making maximum use of combined heat and power and renewable energy.