The big news out of Europe this morning is a decision from the High Court in London that the U.K. energy review released in 2006 that included a recommendation for expanded use of nuclear energy was "seriously flawed". From Bloomberg:
The High Court in London today backed claims brought by environmentalist group Greenpeace that ministers didn't present clear information on key issues such as the disposal of radioactive waste and the costs of new plants before publishing a report on its energy review last July.Despite the setback, the government, which may yet appeal the ruling, vowed to fight on:
``There was procedural unfairness and a breach of the applicant's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest consultation,'' Justice Jeremy Sullivan told the court. ``It was not merely inadequate, but it was also misleading.''
``We're in a race against time here,'' Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said in an interview about the ruling on British Broadcasting Corp.'s Radio 4 in London. ``Climate change is a major threat for us. The best thing to do is to learn from the judge's verdict, to consult and to get things back on track.''As one of my colleagues here at NEI just mentioned to me, "It's all fun and games until the lights go out in London. What are they waiting for, a chance to become over reliant on Russian natural gas?"
UPDATE: A realistic look at the practical implications of Greenpeace's "activism" from Time Immortal. And to enjoy some hip and casual opposition to Greenpeace, click here.
3 comments:
What are they waiting for, a chance to become overreliant on Russian natural gas?
Yup.
Only way the idiocy stops is that blackouts return. Then the uncritical support for enviromental lobbies who are against everything and for nothing will evaporate. Look at what happened in California - it took rolling blackouts to send the activists into hiding long enough to get some new plants built here. Of course, they're gas-fired. :(
Another example of incompetent judges swallowing "green" lies.
I don't think that the judge is incompetent or that Greenpeace committed perjury. The government very foolishly tried to short cut the established procedures. The government should have either followed the established procedures or enacted legislation changing those procedures, or exempting the new policy from those procedures.
The British Government must now go back and either consult as requried by the current law or change the law. Under the British system both these options are available.
I am not sure what public consultation is expected to achieve. They will get two camps presenting opposing views, and then the government will write a report that favors its own position and do what it wants. Not necessarily a waste of time, but consultation is unlikely to change the government's policy.
Post a Comment