Seeing the light!

Independent: Nuclear power? Yes please…

Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country's leading environmentalists—who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy—warn today.

The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.

They all take the view that the building of nuclear power stations is now imperative and that to delay the process with time-consuming public inquiries and legal challenges would seriously undermine Britain's promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050…

Mr [Stephen] Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until he resigned in 2005, has taken a vehemently anti-nuclear stance through out his career as an environmentalist. "My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons," Mr Tindale said…

"My change of mind wasn't sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world," he said.

"It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I'm talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it's actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it's better than climate change," he added.

Richard Carter

A fat, bearded chap with a Charles Darwin fixation.


  1. See, it's not so difficult to have a religious conversion. One day Richard you may be genuinely thanking God for Darwin. (I see you almost made it at the Natural History Museum). Once you believe in God, you can then believe in an anti-God, i.e. the devil. Then you can blame him for cats.

  2. Yes, it's amazing how much carbon monoxide is released by wind turbines. There are about 60 off the coast of Skegness. They are far enough off shore not to offend anyone & local reports say that they are extremely efficient. It did my heart good to see them. I for one will not be joining the growing flock of pro nuclear sheep while there are still safe alternatives. One turn-coat greenpeace twat does not a revolution make!

  3. Wind powerstations are not an alternative to nuclear powerstations: they're just there for the feel-good factor.

    My grandmother donated her front gates to the war effort at Churchill's behest. That was a con as well, but it made her feel that she was doing her bit. Unlike all the bastard neighbours, whose front gates miraculously reappeared after the war.

  4. Even if UK is persuaded to go nucelar then what about the neighbours ?

    If alternative sources are not good enough for UK then they are not good enough for most states with similar populations, energy demands, available land space etc.

    You'll need to convince more than a few ex-Greenpeace members. No point in just UK playing by the (new) rules which is all we seem to be good at.

  5. Zorron, you're right, unfortunately. But I still think a few former sinners repenting is something worth celebrating. And, as for the neighbours, France seems to have the right idea (for once).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *