go nuclear?

Image caption: 

EDF compiled dossiers on our activists in Britain

So it turns out we’re not paranoid then – the
French courts today convicted EDF, the French nuclear giant of spying on our
colleagues in the French Greenpeace office. They were hacking their computers,
putting viruses into their networks and compiling dossiers of our activists
here in Britain.
And goodness knows what else they’ve been doing. We’re not over the top when we
say the nuclear industry can’t be trusted and their underhand methods of trying
to see off their opponents make them incompatible with democracy.

In 2006, EDF hired a private detective agency
called Kargus Consultants, run by a former member of the French secret
services, to work out what Greenpeace France was planning. The agency hacked
the computer of Yannick Jadot, Greenpeace’s then campaigns director, taking
1,400 documents from his computer.

At 14.00 today French Judge Isabelle
Prévost-Desprez pronounced a verdict of guilty in the trial of French state
owned energy giant EDF, which was accused of industrial scale espionage against
Greenpeace. She sentenced EDF executive Pierre-Paul François to three years
imprisonment, with 30 months suspended and Pascal Durieux three years imprisonment,
two years suspended and a 10,000 Euro fine for commissioning the spying operation.

 The judge also handed down a guilty verdict in the
case of Thierry Lorho, the head of Kargus, the company employed by EDF to hack
into the computers of Greenpeace. He has been sentenced to three years in jail,
with two suspended and a 4,000 Euro fine. 

EDF has been fined 1.5 million Euros and ordered to
pay half a million Euros in damages to Greenpeace.

Speaking from alongside the new Rainbow Warrior,
currently on its maiden voyage and docked in London,
Greenpeace UK’s
executive director, John Sauven,
said: “The evidence presented at the trial showed that the espionage
undertaken by EDF in its efforts to discredit Greenpeace was both extensive and
totally illegal. The company should now give a full account of the spying
operation it mounted against its critics. As one of the six companies with a
monopoly over electricity supply in this country and a major sponsor of the
Olympics, EDF has a duty to come clean. The length of the sentences handed down
shows just how seriously the judge views what the French state owned company
did.”

11 October, 2011

In response to the publishing today of Mike Weightman’s final report into the lessons from the Fukushima tragedy, Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace Senior Energy Campaigner said:
 
“This looks like a rushed report, before the full implications are known about the Fukushima disaster. It’s designed with one objective – to give the green light to a new generation of nuclear power stations, irrespective of the safety, environmental or rising financial costs of those nuclear stations. This is government complacency.
 
So while our European counterparts like Germany turn their backs on nuclear and are instead driving their economies towards a green sustainable future powered by renewable energy, creating much needed new jobs in the process, our government ploughs on blindly in the face of the economic facts that make nuclear ever more expensive and a bad deal for Britain.”

 
Notes for editors:
The Government set the deadline for Dr Weightman’s final report significantly ahead of the major international comparable reviews into the implications of Fukushima.
     
-              31 December – ONR’s final report on EU stress tests.
-              April 2012 – Independent peer review of the national reports on the EU stress tests
-              March 2012- UN action plan on nuclear safety
-              August 2012 – The Convention on Nuclear Safety meeting to consider the lessons of Fukushima.

10 October, 2011

Ahead of Chris Huhne’s publication on Tuesday of the Office of Nuclear Regulator’s final report into the implications of Fukushima. Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace Energy Campaigner said:

“It’s not really clear what Dr Weightman’s final report is for. The government already jumped the gun and gave the green light to new reactors in Britain without bothering to wait for Dr Weightman’s final conclusions on lessons from the Fukushima disaster.

The rushed timetable set for this final report looks like a dangerous attempt by the government to cut corners and carve out voices of concern, in order to keep pushing forward with its favoured technology. That’s why we are taking the government to court – to make them wait for the evidence, properly consult and to think again about new nuclear power, like Germany, instead of closing ranks again with the nuclear industry.”

10 October, 2011

In response to the news of the Radioactive leak at Dounreay, Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace Energy campaigner said:

“This is a chilling reminder that Britain’s nuclear industry, despite all it’s assurances, is not able to keep its plants secure. Even as they are decommissioned and even after billions in tax payers’ money has been thrown at them.

Instead of colluding with the industry to race ahead with a new generation of reactors, and before we can learn the lessons from the Fukushima disaster, the government should back clean, safe renewable energy alternatives and boost jobs and growth with it.”

26 August, 2011

Greenpeace
UK has today served legal
papers on the government for unlawfully failing to take into account the
implications of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in
their future planning for the building of new nuclear power stations at sites in
Britain.

In a 1611 page legal
submission to the High Court, Greenpeace is seeking a Judicial Review of the
government’s decision not to take into account specialist advice on the
implications of the Fukushima disaster on future reactors, which it
has an obligation to do. The case made by Greenpeace against the government and
the secretary of state Chris Huhne includes:

• That
  the secretary of state unlawfully chose to press ahead with his plans for new
  nuclear reactors at eight sites in England and Wales (through the Nuclear
  National Policy Statement) without waiting to take into account relevant
  considerations arising from the Fukushima disaster.
• That
  the government appears to have regarded Dr Mike Weightman’s Interim Report into
  the lessons from Fukushima as a ‘green light’ for proceeding with the Nuclear
  National Policy Statement even though that the report highlighted areas of
  serious concern requiring further investigation and that Dr Weightman’s review
  remains ongoing.
• That
  communications between government officials and nuclear companies seems to show
  that there was no real intention to properly consider the implications of the
  disturbing events at Fukushima with an open mind as to what careful analysis of
  those events and their aftermath might reveal about the safety of nuclear power
  and the UK’s ability to respond to a major nuclear incident.
• That
  he failed to fully consider all the risks of flooding to a nuclear site despite
  the evidence of how flooding affected operations at Fukishima. Five of the eight
  sites identified for new reactors are wholly or partly in areas classified by
  the Environment Agency as being areas of high flood risk.
• That
  he failed to wait for analysis of the lessons from Fukushima on how electricity
  supply, both on and off site, including back up sources and supplies can be
  guaranteed in the event of an emergency over suitably long timescales in order
  to provide vital cooling for reactors. The root causes for the Fukushima station blackout
  and loss of power supply have not yet been properly analysed.
• That
  the Nuclear National Policy Statement fails to fully consider the lessons from
  Fukushima on the need for emergency planning for on and off site consequences of
  a nuclear accident involving a much wider emergency situation with radiation
  releases over a prolonged time and involving a need to evacuate and re-house
  large numbers of people. The Japanese emergency planning system demonstrably
  failed to provide early and sufficient protection for the civilian population in
  Japan.

Commenting on the legal case John Sauven, Greenpeace Executive
Director said:

“The tragic events of Fukushima have been a catalyst for governments
around the world to look again at the safety and viability of their nuclear
plans. Instead of following the lead of countries like Germany, our government has recklessly decided to
push ahead with new nuclear power without properly taking into account many of
the lessons from Fukushima or wider implications for the nuclear
industry.

“We
believe the government’s failure to properly consult experts and the public
after the Fukushima tragedy amounts to a dangerous attempt to cut corners and
carve out voices of concern, in order to keep pushing forward with its favoured
technology. We think they should be challenged on
this.

“Following Fukushima, a number of countries decided
nuclear power wasn’t worth the risk or increased costs and focused on safer,
clean renewable technologies. Instead in Britain, despite election promises,
the coalition government is planning hundreds of millions of pounds more in
hidden subsidies for the nuclear industry and dragging its heels on creating the
green jobs and growth we need. This judicial review should act as wake up call
for the government to think again to stop closing ranks with the nuclear
industry and properly consult.”

Ends

Notes to editors:

UK
governments have a long record of failure to properly or fairly consult on
nuclear issues.

• In February 2007
  Greenpeace was successful in its application for judicial review of the then
  government’s decision to give policy support to nuclear power. The court held
  that the decision not give support to nuclear power was in breach of
  Greenpeace’s legitimate expectation of full
  consultation.
• In May 2007, the
  government published a new consultation on the Future of Nuclear Power. A
  complaint by Greenpeace and other NGOs was upheld by the Market Research
  Standards Board which found that “..there were a number of examples where they
  considered that objectively viewed, information was inaccurately or misleadingly
  presented, or was imbalanced, which gave rise to a material risk of respondents
  being led towards a particular answer.”

For press enquiries
call 07711 156 881

A vote will happen in parliament either late tonight or tomorrow on government plans to hand out a whopping £1billion in new subsidies for the nuclear industry. The money will come from energy consumer pockets and will go to EDF and Centrica for doing absolutely nothing new at all.

Our volunteers have been meeting with their MPs across the country with a very simple request – keep your promises. All major parties stood at the general election promising not to allow new subsidies, and yet billions in hidden subsidies are planned by the Conservative lead coalition – obsessed with bailing out this badly damaged industry.

On the weekend the Guardian reported that the fault lines in the coalition over new nuclear power are widening by the day. The Lib Dems need to resist the frantic arm twisting of the Conservatives and show some of that ‘muscular liberalism’ promised by Nick Clegg. Every pound spent propping up the nuclear industry is a pound not invested in building our own home grown renewable energy sector powered by the wind, sun and waves.

MPs should think twice about new hand outs for nuclear power, particularly after last week’s expose, also in the Guardian. Through a Freedom of Information request the Guardian obtained email correspondence that shows the government has been colluding with the nuclear industry to down play the Fukushima disaster in order to keep their plans for new reactors on track. Only two days after the earthquake and tsunami knocked out the nuclear plant and the extent of the disaster was unknown.

Labour has tabled an amendment to stop the subsidy plan, and this will be MP’s first opportunity to oppose the new subsidies.  We’ll be watching to see if they stickl to their promises. We’ll keep you posted on what is set to be a long running drama.

In the meantime if you would like to get involved lobbying in your area, join your local group or sign up to our lobbying network.

A mind boggling $1,000 billion will be spent by the world’s
nine nuclear-armed powers (including Britain) over the next decade on modernising nuclear weapons, says campaign group Global Zero – while UK budgets for social and environmental spending are slashed. 

But, you can do something: learn more about the issues by heading to your local cinema tomorrow, Tuesday June 21, to join the UK premiere of Countdown to Zero for Demand Zero Day.

Produced by the team behind An Inconvenient Truth, Countdown to Zero is a chilling wake-up call about the urgency of the nuclear threat in the 21st century. 

Filmmaker Lucy Walker literally traveled the world to secure insightful interviews with a host of international experts, world leaders and those on the frontline of trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons. The end result is a film described by the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw as: ‘the horror film of the year, or perhaps the decade’.

The film is being screened simultaneously across the UK and Ireland tomorrow, June 21,  at sixty cinemas nationwide, plus a similar number of ambassador screenings in non-cinema venues. And after the film venues there will be a link up live to BAFTA for a panel discussion with special guests Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, Margaret Beckett, Lawrence Bender (Tarantino’s producer) and ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

To find your local screening visit: countdowntozerofilm.com/screenings

And to sign the petition demanding a world without nuclear weapons: cutnukes.globalzero.org

Image caption: 

The Lib Dems have long been anti-nuclear. Time to put policy into practice

On the eve of a vital vote on taxpayer subsidies for nuclear
power, we’ve published the results of an exclusive opinion poll which shows that the
majority of people – 46 per cent – oppose any future subsidy for the nuclear power
industry – compared to less than a third who support it (32%).

Liberal Democrat MPs stood at the last election on a manifesto pledge
of opposing new nuclear power and ending public subsidy: these opinion poll findings
will be a reminder of what the electorate expect.

When asked how Lib Dem MPs should vote in any future bill on public subsidy for
nuclear, 51 per cent said they wanted them to either vote against or abstain from any
future parliamentary vote.

Among Liberal Democrat voters, the expectation that their MPs should live up to
their manifesto promises was even greater, with just under two thirds of
respondents (63 per cent) saying they wanted Lib Dem MPs to either vote against or
abstain.

Three Liberal Democrat MPs -Stephen Williams, Roger Williams and Mike Crockart
- will have the opportunity this week to stick with their election promises when
an amendment to the Finance Bill is put before the Public Bill Committee on
Tuesday that will rule out future taxpayer subsidy. 

One of them, Mike Crokart, made his views clear on nuclear subsidy a year ago
when he said:

“I still remain concerned that
Britain’s new generation of nuclear power stations can be built without the
need for any public subsidies. There are too many unknown risk factors in the
construction and decommissioning of these plants and history has proven that
significant cost overruns have led to governments across the world having to
step in and save the projects.

“In Scotland we have the potential to become a
world leader in the renewable energy industry and I urge the Government to
invest in these schemes before throwing money at the nuclear energy
industry.”

So the question for the Lib Dem Three on Tuesday, when the amendment comes
before the committee, will be can they display muscular liberalism or Liberal capitulation.

Download the YouGov poll, Subsidies for Nuclear Power Stations here (PDF, 64.2KB) >>

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/document/poll-subsidies-nuclear-power-stations-results

Find out more about Greenpeace UK’s work on nuclear and renewables:

• Does
  Trident announcement mark a new Lib Dem broken promise? (blog)
• HSBC backs
  nuclear power in Indian earthquake zone (blog)
• Subsidy assessment of waste
  transfer pricing for disposal of spent fuel from new nuclear power
  stations (Report, 1.6MB)
• From our radiation
  sampling team in Japan (blog)
• Japan needs our support (blog)

A
while back I got a letter from the Lib Dems telling me “Trident
will not be renewed this parliament – not on a Liberal Democrat watch”.

This
ran though my mind today as I watched Defence Secretary Liam Fox stand up in
parliament to pronounce ‘thunderbirds are go’ on the next phase of building a
replacement for Trident.

It’s
not the full replacement mind – just £3bn worth. Just some nuclear reactors, a
bit of steel for the hull, the electrics, bits of the combat system…and only
for three submarines…

And
in the small print of today’s announcement the MoD admit that these submarines are going to cost not £11-14bn, but
a stonking £25bn. (Download MoD pdf document, see section 6.1) 

The government’s spin doctors are
apparently at great pains to say this isn’t an increase in the actual
cost of the project. It’s inflation. Yeees well back in 1960 you could probably
get a lovely detached house for £5,000 but that is kind of irrelevant…its 2011
and given all the cutbacks we are all pretty interested in what things actually
cost!

So
did we see another Lib Dem commitment fall today?

The
other main announcement was that there’s going to be an 18-month assessment into whether there are
any alternatives to Trident replacement. Interestingly the study will report
jointly to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. So looks like the real
test of whether the Lib Dems really do have some influence on this issue
is yet to happen. Will Nick Clegg yet intervene and ensure he keeps his
election promise?