Speech representing Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy
By Stephen Stretton

In the debate: ‘Nuclear Energy – can we afford not to do it?’
Institute for Civil Engineers debate 
The Hilton Hotel, London Stansted Airport,
Friday 28th April 2006

Madam Chairman, thank you. I would also like to thank the Institute for organising this debate and for inviting ‘Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy’ to present our case. It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to debate here, amongst such distinguished people. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, We are asked to consider the motion ‘Nuclear Energy: Can we afford to do without it?’ 

This question concerns our future as a nation. Will we have enough energy in the future? Shall we, as in the past, obtain our fuel from secure, reliable sources? Or instead will we be forced to compete for dwindling supplies of natural gas from Nigeria, North Africa, or Russia?

Yet, ladies and gentlemen, there is an even more important issue. It concerns the future of Earth, and the plants, animals and humans, which live upon its surface. 

You will be aware of the concern over global warming. It has been known for one hundred years that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat in the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’. Carbon Dioxide is emitted in the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which presently supply eighty percent of the world's energy needs. Humanity has now reached a scale, that, if we continue like this, we will double the concentration of Carbon Dioxide within fifty years. This would lead to an increase in average worldwide temperature of 2 - 5 degrees Celsius or more.

An increase in global temperatures of two or three Celsius will alter the Earth drastically and irreversibly. All coral reefs would be destroyed. The polar ice caps would begin to melt. The earth’s heat circulation system may shut down and the Amazon rainforest would collapse, releasing more carbon dioxide. Hundreds of millions of people would face drought and starvation.

For a five-Celsius warming much of what is now forest or fertile farmland would become scrub or desert. How would we feed 10 billion people? The temperature would continue to increase for a century or more, and sea levels would rise for a thousand years. 

For those who say that we should worry about other human or environmental problems, I say: Global Warming has the potential to make all these problems much worse, if we do not act now. So act we must.	   

Many have sought international agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Yet each country has its own individual needs, and nations are unwilling to sign agreements they cannot easily keep. We need to act with or without international agreement.

Some say that energy efficiency is the solution. It is easy to turn a light bulb off. Yet once these easy savings are gone, it becomes increasingly costly to use less energy. And we must consider the fast growing giants of China and India. Who are we to say they must remain poor? In our industrial revolution, as steam engines improved, more rather than less coal was burnt.

Some say renewable energy is the solution. Yet, besides their expense, wind or solar or energy crops cannot produce enough energy for the large modern urban economies. Wind energy, on the most optimistic projections can generate less than one tenth of British energy needs (when the wind is blowing); other fuels even less. I’ve been on climate marches and shouted myself hoarse. But renewables are not the answer. 

An answer needs to be found not only for the UK, but also for the rest of the world. Yet this is not easy. Unless we invest in the correct technologies, we face a ‘tragedy of the commons’ on a global scale, where each country goes it’s own way and the planet goes to hell. Even if the UK were to reduce its energy consumption, would China and the US follow suit?

Yet there IS a solution that is attractive for all the major economies of the world. This is found in modern, safe nuclear energy. One kilogram of Uranium generates one million times more electricity than a kilogram of coal. The cost of fuel is low and there is enough to fuel us for hundreds of years. It is mined in stable, trading, countries such as Australia and Canada. 

Modern nuclear plants are incredibly safe and secure, and produce very small amounts of waste, securely managed. They are already the least expensive energy source for the UK. The more are built, the more the world will ‘learn by doing’, making nuclear better still. America and China could then choose a zero-carbon future instead of returning to dirty coal. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, today is a special moment in my lifetime. Britain is debating its energy future. With our partners, we have a chance to make a real difference. We must avoid a half-hearted policy and embrace one that gives our children a bright future.

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy are committed to avoiding dangerous climate change. We suggest an immediate transition to a zero carbon economy. We should build one hundred simple and safe nuclear power stations, over the next 10-15 years. These would heat our homes, support our industry and power clean, quiet, electric cars. The cost would be less than what we currently spend on armed forces.

When the oil and gas run out, humanity will need a fuel to turn to. We could exploit the Arctic for tar shales. We could burn even more coal. Yet such options would be catastrophic for the earth and for our future. Nuclear energy is already the best way to fuel Britain. Let’s work with the rest of the world to ensure a happy future on Earth for all. And let’s keep the Amazon Rainforest, and our green and pleasant land.

Thank you