As countries like China and India strive towards development, global energy demands are increasing.
Quite how the world meets these demands is subject to much debate.
'Access to energy is of strategic importance for every country in the world.'
– Greenpeace USA 2010 (opens in a new window)
Environmentalists such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth advocate energy efficiency and renewable energies such as wind and solar power. Others argue that these plans are idealistic and are not capable of delivering the huge amounts of energy the world will demand in the future. They believe that nuclear is green and is the only practical way of delivering large scale energy while achieving the necessary carbon reductions.
The following quotes and weblinks highlight the opposing viewpoints.
Traditional environmentalists
Greenpeace USA have produced an [E]nergy Revolution document which outlines how a global sustainable energy policy may be developed:
– Greenpeace USA 2010 (opens in a new window)
'[...]a comprehensive blueprint for building the clean energy economy of the future while leaving behind the dirty energy sources of the past.'
Their ideas have been met with some criticism however.
Energy revolution could increase bills by a third
– telegragh.co.uk (opens in a new window)
Wind Energy's Real Problems
– Robert Bryce (opens in a new window)
The new environmentalists
The group of 'new' environmentalists believe that nuclear is the only practical answer to the energy problem.
'Environmentalists have much less to fear in reality from the current nuclear power industry than they think, and much more to gain from new and planned reactor designs than they realise... Nukes are green, new nukes even more so'.
– Stewart Brand; Whole Earth Discipline, p76
'I am addicted to electricity. So are you. And so is your business. We live in an 'always on' world – air conditioners, streetlights, TVs, PCs, cell phones, and more. And with forecasts that we'll need 40% more electricity by 2030, determining how we can realistically feed our energy addiction without ruining our environment is the critical challenge of the new century.'
– Christine Todd Whitman; businessweek.com (opens in a new window)
'Nuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criterion by which to judge any viable alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or petroleum fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved.'
– Daniel Koffler; guardian.co.uk (opens in a new window)
The traditional environmentalists argue nuclear is dangerous, unnecessary and a distraction:
'The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. There's still no safe way to deal with it.'
– greenpeace.org.uk (opens in a new window)
'If a nuclear waste train was involved in a terrorist attack, tens of thousands of people could be exposed to cancer causing radiation and whole regions might have to be evacuated.'
– greenpeace.org.uk (opens in a new window)
'A new nuclear programme would only make a minor contribution to tackling climate change and the various risks and dangers are simply not worth it, nor its toxic long term legacy.'
– Friends of the Earth (foe.co.uk)(opens in a new window) [PDF]
Features:
Geoengineering I Zambia I Chernobyl I Golden Rice I Climate change I The energy debate I DTT
