ecologist

Founded in 1970

Editor Zac Goldsmith Editor’s Assistant Layla Dayani Managing Editor Harry Ram Deputy Editor Jon Hughes Green Pages Editor Matilda Lee Health Editor Pat Thomas Science Editor Peter Bunyard Sub-editor Sharyn Wong Art Director Sarah Ward Distribution Manager Kim Steffen Marketing Manager Selina Barker Researchers Jim Rosseinsky, Alice Clarfelt, Clare Sutton, Laura Sevier Advertising Manager Zayda Kebede Publisher Tyler Moorehead

ADVERTISING POLICY: Every advertiser featured in The Ecologist has been vetted to ensure its products or services don’t damage the environment, the people it employs or the consumer. As a result, we won’t accept advertising from any organisation that relies on or profi ts from: nuclear energy, fossil fuels, mining, arms, sweatshop labour, animal testing, pharmaceuticals, large-scale dams, GM, pesticides, exploitative trade practices, nanotechnology, toxic chemicals, industrial agriculture, supermarkets or deforestation.

PHOTOGRAPH BYCORBIS

Founding Editor Edward Goldsmith Editorial Board Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick, John Page, all of ISEC Editorial Offi ce Unit 18, Chelsea Wharf, 15 Lots Road, London, SW10 0QJ, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7351 3578 Fax: +44 (0)20 7351 3617 Email editorial@theecologist.org Website www.theecologist.org

SUBSCRIPTIONS/RENEWALS www.theecologist.org; 01795 414 963 Retail Distribution: Book and food shops, Central Books Tel +44 (0) 20 8986 4854; sasha@centralbooks.com Newsstand COMAG Specialist Tel +44 (0) 1895 433 800; Fax +44 (0) 1895 433 801 North America only: IPA/ Indy Press Newsstand Services Tel 415-445-0230 ext. 123; Fax 415-445-0237

The Ecologist’s international Serial Number is ISSN 0261-3131 North America: Periodicals Postage Paid at Rahway, NJ. Postmaster: Send address corrections to: The Ecologist, c/o Mercury Airfreight International Ltd., 365 Blair Road, Avenel NJ 07001. All information correct at time of going to press. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright owner. No responsibility will be accepted for any errors or omissions, or comments made by writers or interviewees. Views expressed and goods advertised are not necessarily the views of, or are endorsed by, Ecosystems Ltd. Printed in UK by The Friary Press. C The Ecologist 2006.

Printed on Emerald FSC made from up to 75% recycled post-consumer waste and at least 17.5% certifi ed pulp from well-managed forests independently certifi ed in accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council, supplied by Paperback under chain of custody SGS-COC-0621. FSC Trademark 1996 Forest Stewardship Council A.C.

EDITORIAL

Before climate change found its way onto the mainstream political agenda, nuclear energy was in steady decline – hounded by environmentalists and rejected by the city. Then all of a sudden, it was transformed into a solution to the greatest threat we’ve ever faced. Reliable and sustainable, indigenous and immediately available – nuclear energy, we were told, is carbon neutral too – and the answer therefore not only to the looming energy crisis, but to climate change itself. Not surprisingly, environmentalists have been under enormous pressure to put aside their traditional hostility to nuclear. The threat of climate change dramatically outweighs the worst of nuclear power. So if it were genuinely the case that nuclear power provides a solution to climate change, there’s no question they’d have to embrace it – irrespective of the waste, costs, risks and so on. But is it really an answer to climate change? Is it even an answer to the emerging energy crisis? Without imported uranium, nuclear energy couldn’t happen, so to describe it as an ‘indigenous’ energy source is misleading. What’s more, it’s hard to know exactly how much uranium exists, but some of the world’s best known commodity traders are betting on a huge price rise on the back of already-dwindling reserves. Some analysts believe uranium supplies will deplete on roughly the same timescale as oil and gas. So it’s diffi cult to justify calling nuclear energy either reliable or sustainable. Nor is nuclear power immediately available. It will take at least ten years for new plants to become operational. That’s not the case with energy effi ciency, which can happen today. Nor is it the case with the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems that already fl ourish in parts of Britain and Europe, and which are unarguably cheaper, cleaner and safer. But more importantly, the contribution of nuclear to emissions reductions has been wildly exaggerated. Even if we replaced our existing nuclear reactors – and doubled their number – we’d see a mere 8 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, and not until 2035. It’s a gain – but a miniscule one. And contrary to claims, nuclear isn’t carbon neutral – every stage of the nuclear cycle, other than fi ssion itself, produces carbon dioxide. Compare the ambiguities of nuclear with the alternatives. An energy effi ciency programme, for instance, could save us twice the energy currently generated by nuclear, at a fraction of the cost. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a pound invested in energy effi ciency buys seven times more ‘solution’ than a pound invested in nuclear. To put it in context, if every lightbulb in the UK was exchanged with an energy effi cient model, we’d save the power equivalent of nearly two advanced gas reactors. Much of this has already been proven by companies like Bayer, BT, DuPont and Norske Canada for instance, who have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent since 1990 with total gross savings of US$4 billion. So too have any number of alternative energy sources been established and proven. Solar, wave, wind, and so on all have roles to play. And Combined Heat and Power is emerging as a potential front runner. If Woking has reduced its emissions by more than 75 per cent - that is at least partly thanks to a highly effective CHP system. Despite all the ugly baggage, according to a number of recent opinion polls most people would accept a nuclear revival if it would improve our chances of tackling climate change. But nuclear is a half-remedy – at best – for a problem that needs more than half remedies, and for which truly effective solutions already exist.

Zac Goldsmith

THE ECOLOGIST 005