A big problem I have with the Dr Boardman's arguments is that it seems toThe big problem is the debate is pitting an uncomfortable idea that we can implement straight away, against a set of far more palatable, but far harder to quantify ideas. Given the urgency in this matter, I think it's time to take the option that we can be sure will work.
putting clear plan of action against a set of vague notions.
Sir David's idea is clear, we build new nuclear power stations, we reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and get a clear result of reduction in carbon emissions.
Dr Boardman's proposals are far less clear, taking into account lifestyle changes
and the options she identifies we could achieve some reduction in catbon
emissions. It would be hard to say just how much though. There is also the
question as to why these options have to be an alternative rather than a
complement to nuclear power.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
I stumbled across an interesting link to an Oxford debate on nuclear power on Rupert Read's blog the other day. From where I'm standing, Sir David is winning the debate. I added the following.