The Nuclear Pledge in full

I am opposed to the building of new nuclear power stations at the public expense. New nuclear power has been justified on the basis that it is the best way for the UK to:

• reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases, and so combat climate change;
• close the impending "electricity generation gap" caused by the closure of existing nuclear power stations;
• ensure our national energy security in the decades ahead.

In my view, and that of many independent experts, these arguments are wrong, for the following reasons:

1. Far greater greenhouse gas emission reductions can be secured by investing finite resources in a combination of renewable energy, energy efficiency and microgeneration, than by subsidising nuclear power.
2. The predicted deficit in the UK's electricity supply can be met, and more, by accelerated investment in renewable energy supply and microgeneration, and by vigorous measures to reduce electricity demand by promoting energy efficiency in homes, factories and offices.
3. A green electricity strategy based on renewables, microgeneration and demand reduction is free of any serious risks or long term liabilities. Nuclear power, by contrast, is associated with:
   • radioactive emissions;
   • high decommissioning costs;
   • the need for secure, very long term storage of nuclear waste;
   • the small but utterly uninsurable risk of severe nuclear accidents;
   • the potential role of nuclear power stations and other nuclear facilities as targets for terrorist attack;
   • the role of civilian nuclear power as a producer of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
4. The world contains only limited resources of commercially and energetically viable uranium deposits, and these will quickly run out if any widespread global scramble for nuclear power takes place. No such uranium deposits exist in the UK. If the UK builds new nuclear power stations, they will depend entirely on imports of uranium over a period of half a century or more, and these supplies may become impossible to secure at commercially viable prices.
5. By contrast, raising energy efficiency will reduce our dependency on all fuel and energy imports. Renewable electricity depends only on the wind, waves, tidal flows and sunshine. None of these need to be imported, and they are immune from the vagaries of fuel and energy markets. The UK enjoys the greatest renewable energy potential of any country in Europe.

I therefore believe that to commit enormous sums of the public's money - whether raised by taxation, electricity surcharge or other means - to nuclear power is profoundly wrong, misguided and reckless. In consequence:

I pledge:

1. to resist paying any nuclear surcharge in my electricity bills to subsidise new nuclear power stations;
2. if I successfuly withold the nuclear surcharge, to pay the money into a green fund, run by independent experts, which will pay for new, additional renewable electricity generation and energy conservation;
3. to vote in the next General Election for a political party that promises a green electricity strategy based on renewables and conservation, not on nuclear power;
4. to take other non-violent actions of my own against nuclear power and for a green energy future.

Note

If you refuse to pay the part of your electricity bill that relates to nuclear subsidy, you will put yourself into dispute with your electricity supplier. This could end up with Court Action, or with your electricity being cut off. Your Pledge does not commit you to pursue your resistance to a nuclear surcharge to these extremes. Your promise is to make an initial refusal to pay, or other act of resistance. It is entirely up to you how far you take your resistance.