Climate change: consummate concern

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'. Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4C rise

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more "blunt" about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are "on track for something like four ". Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, "I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise."

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies... Full story from link below:

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse' | Environment | The Observer

Nuclear no no

No-one would disagree (would they?) that burying waste from today's nuclear power stations leaves a very big set of social, economic and environmental problems for many generations to come. Since sustainability is about dealing with risks and costs now and not passing problems to future generations it therefore follows that burying nuclear waste is inherently unsustainable. The following question alone demonstrates this: with waste that can be active for thousands of yrs how can it be possible to guarantee that the institutions needed would be stable beyond periods which have so far proved to be whole lifetimes of civilisations?

Despite the logic above the UK plans to build more nuclear power stations (if the huge economic cost obstacles can be overcome) and the '...search for an underground storage site for high-level nuclear waste is likely to go ahead in Cumbria after a poll showed residents are in favour.

In Copeland, the local authority area encapsulating Sellafield [pictured], 68% of people backed entering formal talks with government on hosting the repository.

Across Cumbria as a whole, 53% are in favour and 33% opposed...'
(full report here).

Safe systems?

The Evening Post headline 'Oldbury deemed safe' is misleading as it makes no sense to declare something 'safe' ie free from risk. This is not what the assessments of UK nuclear power stations have tried to do. What does make sense is to talk about degrees of risk ie the probability occurrence of various hazards. 'No major weaknesses' in UK nuclear stations is not the same as safe - better to say that certain risks have been found to be low probability. The development of life on Earth is thought to be an extremely low probability event - but here we are!

BBC News - Andrew Lansley plays down risks of his NHS changes

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has admitted there is "risk" involved in his English NHS shake-up...No s**t Sherlock...but says there is a greater risk from doing nothing...but no-one is arguing for doing nothing and what he plans is a massive change forced from the centre with far too much haste and no democracy, that will result in huge private sector involvements and so a change in motivations.

He said spending was set to rise...really? isn't the NHS budget at a virtual standstill that will be wiped out and become a cut due to rising drug and technology costs plus the impact of an ageing population? but the Labour years had shown that spending more money "isn't the answer". Er...no, no, no...doing nothing but spending more money would not be the answer - we need bottom-up, agreed reforms not privatisation, decent health spending not the Coalition cuts!

BBC News - Andrew Lansley plays down risks of his NHS changes

Community benefit and the common good - from nuclear waste??

The terms ‘community benefit’ and ‘common good’ are in my view ideas inherently incompatible with nuclear waste. Yet both these terms have recently been used in connection with it! A report before West Somerset councillors describes a proposal, from the Magnox Electric firm, to set up a nuclear waste disposal facility near the Hinkley A nuclear station to help with decommissioning, along with a ‘community benefits fund’ to ‘compensate’ residents living nearby.

Is this the beginning of a number of such proposals around the country as old nuclear stations have to be decommissioned? This is the kind of territory that having an ongoing nuclear power program gets you into (including trainloads of nuclear waste flasks through Bristol every two/three weeks).

The Bristol Evening Post (‘Nuclear waste dump spurs cash handouts’, Sep 10) quotes the report as saying,

‘The establishment of a permanent disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste means that a continuing element of risk will continue for the foreseeable future and , as such communities should derive a benefit.’

First, this is an admission of the dangers of even low-level radioactivity!

Second, I certainly wouldn’t feel I’d benefited from having nuclear waste disposed of near me because ‘compensation’ was paid into community development projects.

The report also refers to the ‘substantial financial contribution to a common good fund’. Apparently its ok to sacrifice the common good of public safety provided cash is offered!

Not surprisingly the Stop Hinkley organisation does not like the fund idea, and does not want to see this idea used around the country. Spokesman Jim Duffy referred to the offer of cash as a ‘sweetener’ and ‘pay-off ’ which would be ‘spread very thinly in the community’ and could set a precedent – they are spot on. The idea of trading safety for cash like this should be seen as unethical.

Stop Hinkley’s views and work. The Bridgewater Mercury report on this issue.

Guardian report on how green groups are poised to withdraw from the government’s nuclear power consultation process because the facts are being distorted.

The influence of the nuclear lobby is high so perhaps, whether people generally want it or not, we will get both the nuclear dump plus 'compensation' and a new set of nuclear stations built (each of which will at some point need its waste disposed of).