Nuclear power will fail to achieve what George Monbiot wants
Nuclear industry's broken promises show atomic energy will not help climate efforts, say former directors of Friends of the Earth

...As four former Directors of Friends of the Earth, we wrote to the Prime Minster this week setting out eight major economic and political problems facing a new build nuclear programme in the UK. We have engaged in the nuclear debate for forty years. On the basis of our experience and the evidence, we concluded that the government's policy will fail.

Sadly, this prompted an intemperate attack by George Monbiot. We respect Monbiot's commitment to the environment as a campaigning journalist. We share his deep desire to tackle climate change – and have dedicated our working lives to addressing it and other environmental problems.

What we don't understand is why Monbiot nowhere tells us how he thinks the government can overcome a single one of the problems we set out. There is a lot in his article about what he thinks about us, as he reaffirms his belief in the nuclear dream.

But he doesn't show how nuclear can go ahead without huge public subsidies, which may well be illegal under EU law. He doesn't dispute the track-record of nuclear build running many years late and way over budget. He doesn't argue about the consequent rise in already excessive energy bills to pay for nuclear electricity.

Monbiot vigorously asserts ...

How the UK is handing control of its energy future to France
'There is no alternative' nuclear advocacy allows energy companies to manipulate UK policy

Had I wondered, 10 years ago, what I would be doing in 2012, signing a letter to the prime minister urging him not to heed four former directors of Friends of the Earth would not have appeared on the list.

I still see Friends of the Earth as a force for good. I will remain a member, as I have been for 20 years or more. But the letter that Jonathon Porritt, Tom Burke, Charles Secrett and Tony Juniper have sent to David Cameron with the support of the current director, suggesting he abandons new nuclear power plants, demands a response.

If Cameron were to act on it, he would set back the UK's efforts to meet its international commitments on climate change, and help to make runaway global warming a more likely prospect. The four former directors' narrowness of vision, and their readiness to appeal to jingoistic and xenophobic sentiments, appal me.

Writing to Cameron this week, they asserted that the UK government is "handing over the control of Britain's future energy and climate security to the government of France." This, a grotesque exaggeration, is a theme they repeated and embellished in the media. Environmentalism has long been internationalist in outlook, recognising the common interests of humankind and emphasising the fact that pollution and environmental destruction does not stop at national boundaries. It often argues that governments should put aside narrow national interests in favour of global concerns. To see this going into reverse is disturbing.

But much more alarming is their apparent willingness to downgrade the effort to tackle man-made climate change...

Why I am urging David Cameron to act against Friends of the Earth
Former directors of the group have written to the prime minister suggesting he abandons new nuclear plants. This demands a response

Had I wondered, 10 years ago, what I would be doing in 2012, signing a letter to the prime minister urging him not to heed four former directors of Friends of the Earth would not have appeared on the list.

I still see Friends of the Earth as a force for good. I will remain a member, as I have been for 20 years or more. But the letter that Jonathon Porritt, Tom Burke, Charles Secrett and Tony Juniper have sent to David Cameron with the support of the current director, suggesting he abandons new nuclear power plants, demands a response.

If Cameron were to act on it, he would set back the UK's efforts to meet its international commitments on climate change, and help to make runaway global warming a more likely prospect. The four former directors' narrowness of vision, and their readiness to appeal to jingoistic and xenophobic sentiments, appal me.

Writing to Cameron this week, they asserted that the UK government is "handing over the control of Britain's future energy and climate security to the government of France." This, a grotesque exaggeration, is a theme they repeated and embellished in the media. Environmentalism has long been internationalist in outlook, recognising the common interests of humankind and emphasising the fact that pollution and environmental destruction does not stop at national boundaries. It often argues that governments should put aside narrow national interests in favour of global concerns. To see this going into reverse is disturbing.

But much more alarming is their apparent willingness to downgrade the effort to tackle man-made climate change....

Ministers 'misled MPs over need for nuclear power stations'
Cross-party report says government misrepresented findings on future electricity demand, and ignored case against nuclear

Ministers misled parliament over the need to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations, distorting evidence and presenting to MPs a false summary of the analysis they had commissioned, a group of MPs and experts alleged in a report published on Tuesday.

If MPs had been presented with an accurate picture of the evidence for and against new reactors, the government's plans might have been challenged, according to the report. Both the previous Labour government and the current coalition overstated the evidence that new nuclear power was needed, it also alleged.

Building new nuclear power stations is highly controversial, as polls consistently show a substantial minority opposing them. But many people, including some environmental campaigners, have been persuaded towards supporting nuclear by the argument that they would help the UK generate power without carbon dioxide emissions.

The previous government cited its own research in order to make that case, but according to today's report, some of the findings were misrepresented when relayed to MPs by ministers. For instance, the report found that rather than assess the requirement for new nuclear power stations and then work out how many would be needed, the government commissioned research that took as its central assumption that 10 new reactors would be built and then presented its research as evidence of the need for 10 reactors.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: "We are...