Skip to main content

Blair Ignores Protesters, Launches U.K. Energy Review

The debate on new nuclear build in the U.K. began in earnest earlier today, as Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech on future energy policy before the Confederation of British Industry was disrupted by a pair of Greenpeace protesters.

Vowing, "I'm going to give this speech if it's the last thing I do," Blair marched to a smaller auditorium inside London's Business and Design Centre and delivered his speech in full:
Mr Blair said nuclear power was a difficult issue but should be settled by open debate, not protests to stop free speech.

The energy review would be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks and report by the middle of next year, he announced.

It would measure the UK's progress against a review carried out two years ago.

And it would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations", he said.

Mr Blair said energy policy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance".

"Round the world you can hear the heavy sound of feverish rethinking," he said.

"Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency."
Following the speech, CBI Director General Digby Jones issued the following statement:
"The CBI conference is the place for free and open debate but Greenpeace has no interest in real debate. Its aim was the opposite - to abuse the hospitality we had extended and to stifle and stop debate. It failed completely.

"The Prime Minister was determined to deliver his speech to the gathered business leaders and Greenpeace was offered the chance to put its views to him -- but instead threatened further disruption.

"The CBI will not be held to ransom or bow to ultimatums. The democratically-elected leader of this nation has every right to speak, and I applaud him, and our delegates, for the determined response which ensured the speech was delivered."
Concern in the U.K. has also been driven by the realization that deposits of oil and natural gas in the North Sea are becoming depleted, and that the nation will probably be forced to import significant quantities of gas from Russia in order to keep pace with demand. The impending retirement of a significant portion of the U.K.'s baseload electrical generating capacity is also driving the review. For more from the BBC, click here.

UPDATE: More coverage from the Scotsman and the Independent. And Blair's speech is the "Topic of the Day," over at And for other reaction from blogs around the world, click here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Blair's speech is getting great reviews, while Greenpeace is only getting noticed because their protest backfired. Here's the view from Pragmatism Refreshed:
The speech would have been rather a bore had Greenpeace not disrupted it. Protestors in the rafters of the hall in whicht he speech was to be held threw confetti, apparently in order to convey the impression of fall-out. Or something.


Blair gave his speech 45 minutes late. But he gave it to what the morning papers are describing as rapturous applause. Greenpeace gave Briton's business lobby and Labour Party a chance to feel good about each other in common defiance of the blokes in the rafters. Not a great way to get your point across, I'm afraid.
The transcript of the speech is available here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,


Matthew66 said…
A "pair of protestors". If two protestors is all that Greenpeace can muster, that is very sad for them. But victorious for science and rational thinking. Here's hoping that, at long last, scientifically informed debate is taking precedence over ideologically driven diatribe and invective. I have long lamented the policies of Greenpeace. Their anti-nuclear prejudice has inflicted global warming on us, while their anti-fur activism has ensured that my Australian homeland is awash with foxes busily consuming all the native species in their path, and that New Zealand is plagued by possums eating all the native flora, thereby endangering native species of flora eaters. The "Via Media" is a moral and ethical imperative. There can be no place for extremism in rational thought. At each stage of human history we need to balance the pros and cons of any given option and choose the optimal (which will change as more information is uncovered).
Rod Adams said…
I wonder how much Greenpeace paid those two protesters to show up?

Here is an interesting account from one Greenpeace professional - pay attention to the following line "I have never failed to open my mouth when it's necessary," she said, laughing. "It's nice to be getting paid for it instead of getting penalized for it."

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…