UK- Greenpeace launches legal challenge against the goverment

Videos

UK- Greenpeace launches legal challenge against the goverment

see larger video

sourced by effective

We're taking legal action against the government for deciding to support nuclear power without full public consultation.

If you followed the 2006 energy review, you'll know that many people
suspected that Blair had already decided to build new nuclear reactors.
As the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee said, the Energy
Review was "a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision [to build new
nuclear power stations] the Prime Minister took some time ago".

Greenpeace think that this half-baked process has led to an
unsubstantiated pro-nuclear policy. This is an issue of huge public
concern since the implications of building new nuclear reactors - which
create long-lived and highly radioactive waste - will impact
generations to come.

We also think the government's new found support of nuclear energy
is legally flawed. Three years ago, the government promised that
"Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power
stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and
the publication of a white paper".

The government failed to carry out this full public consultation.
Consultees weren't given substantial information on, for example, how
radioactive waste would be managed, siting reports, the proposed design
of the reactors or how much they would cost. The Energy Review utterly
failed to consult on these issues before the Prime Minister made his
decision.

Sarah North, head of our nuclear campaign, explains: "This summer
the government said it will support nuclear new build. This is a change
in policy which they promised they would not make without the fullest
public consultation and a White Paper.

"Greenpeace has brought this challenge because we believe Government
has failed to meet this commitment and that this is an issue of huge
public concern. Greenpeace is now asking the High Court to intervene."

So we've filed papers at the High Court. This challenge will
probably lead to a full judicial review. If the court quashes the
government's decision that the UK needs nuclear energy, it could force
the government to go back and carry out a genuine public consultation -
one that actually addresses issues relating to building new nuclear
reactors comprehensively.

"Given that there are much more sophisticated, effective and safer
ways than nuclear power to meet our energy demands and cut our climate
change emissions, Greenpeace feels that a comprehensive process might
reach very different conclusions."

We're not alone in thinking the review was a farce. The Sustainable
Development Commission said: "Our Energy Challenge offers no
information whatsoever on what any new nuclear programme might look
like& people are being asked to comment on the potential
contribution of a new nuclear programme without any of the key aspects
(regarding reactor design, cost, waste management, liability issues,
and so on) having been addressed."

The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee were concerned
"about the manner in which this Energy Review has been conducted.
Throughout the process, the Government has hinted strongly that it has
already made its mind up on nuclear power. The last review took three
years to complete, yet this one has been conducted in the space of six
months. & What is more, it is clear to us that the outcome of the
Energy Review has largely been determined before adequate consideration
could possibly have been taken of important evidence that should inform
the Government's policy decision."

And The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee said: "The
nature of the current Energy Review is unclear-whether it is
specifically fulfilling the Prime Minister's desire to make a decision
on nuclear, whether it is a review of electricity generating policy,
whether it is a wider review of progress against the Energy White
Paper, or whether it is reopening the broad policy debate which the
White Paper itself encompassed. We are also concerned that it does not
appear to have resulted from a due process of monitoring and
accountability, and that the process by which it is being conducted
appears far less structured and transparent than the process by which
the White Paper itself was reached".

If you want, you can vote this video on youTube

Published from: Giona