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 Politics.co.uk. 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.

(snip)

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: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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.

Huh?

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 America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…