Top 10 Reasons:
1 Electricity produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not renewable so the supply is not secure.
2 The waste problem is not solved, it will not be safe for over 100,000 years
3 There is a link between NP and Nuclear Weapons
4 NP stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise
5 Nuclear Power is not insured
6 Routine discharges of radioactive materials cause cancer
7 Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack
8 Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not CO2 free
9 Uranium mining is overwhelmingly done on the land left to Indigenous People. These communities are disproportionately affected with sickness and genetic impacts.
10 NP would take funding away from the real long term solutions which are energy efficiency and renewable energy.
nuclear power no thanks
26 comments:
I did think of writing 'The Green Party are in Disarray', but Oxford West and Abingdon is a bit far out of my way from Reading...
Still, perhaps you could have a word with the Green spokesman, Chris Goodall, who argues forcefully that climate change can't be stopped without nuclear power in the Independent (btw it's a national newspaper).
Or is your candidate in the wrong party?
I refer the Lib Dem anonymous blogger to the fact that Chris used the word 'might' when discussing the nuclear option, the media made up the rest. Perhaps he should read the article. See http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/02/22/389 for his own words on this issue.
Does he advise Lib Dems to leave their party when they do actually disagree with party policy, such as Baroness Nicholson MEP who supported Iraq war? Perhaps she should be a Tory.
Ahem, Green candidate Chris Goodall says in the support piece you link to "I reluctantly conclude that we also need to sponsor nuclear power in the UK."
There's no 'might' about it.
...perhaps you should read the article rather than getting stroppy at the suggestion someone might disagree with you - especially someone from within your own party, who is capable of doing so in a much more articulate and erudite manner than you are capable of rebutting.
He gives his personal opinion, as he is entitled to. I came to a different conclusion, see my blog.
You dont comment on the Bloodthirsty Baroness, so either you want her kicked out, you agree the LD policy is wrong or your a hypocrite.
Shame your party loyalty is above reasoned argument. Your personal attacks reveal your true personality.
Adrian, I'm not a spokesman for anyone and I don't claim to to be.
You, on the other hand, pretend to speak for the Green party in one breath and in the next that your disagreement with fellow candidate Chris Goodall is only a matter of personal opinion.
Are you going to change this posting to '10 reasons why Adrian Windisch is against nuclear power'?
Still no answer to my questions about the 'Bloody Baroness'? Scared of her? Is she still a candidate in the Euroelections? And tts your opinion I'm asking for.
If you read my blog, you will see on the header it states its my opinion. Chris writes his blog, thats his opinion. We don't whip people for disagreeing, unlike the 3 grey parties.
If you want to know Green Party opinion is, go to
www.greenparty.org.uk/mediacentre/releases/2009-02-23-nuclear.html
Adrian, you are trying to change the subject and rather than accounting for yourself and your opinion as a candidate standing for election you are attacking a member of the public.
I am happy to answer the question you pose, but your post was not on that topic - as anybody can read for themselves from the title. So, before I respond to your demands, please can you clarify what you are saying.
1)Are you saying that all Greens are opposed to nuclear power, or are you saying that it is OK for the Green candidates to actively campaign in two national newspapers against the official policy of your party?
If the former, how do you account for the apparent contradiction provided by your colleague, Chris Goodall?
If the latter, how can you expect the public trust the Green party has any agreed policy on this fundamental issue for your members, let alone any other?
2)Do you accept that the evidence you cited to support your case does in fact say the exact opposite of what you claimed?
If so, do you mean to say you didn't actually read the article you yourself provided in evidence, or did you merely misunderstand what is an unequivocal and plainly written sentence? And are you therefore prepared to apologise for telling me to read the article?
If not, why not?
If you can't answer a simple question that is relevant to your post, then this is not much of a discussion. Your lack of comprehension and inability to respond to a question says plenty about you.
I have already explained the green party policy on nuclear power and on whipping. What you describe as my 'evidence' is actually, as I explained the opinions of Chris Goodall. The evidence that help shape my opinion are already in my blog.
You might be interested in the opinions of another Oxford Green Party Candidate, Peter Tatchell.
“he has a duty to promote anti-nuclear policies, but if he wants to promote his own personal perspective that should be respected as well. He should not go into an election on a pro-nuclear platform.”
I'm sorry Adrian, I thought this is your blog and that you wrote this post.
As you quote him I think it is fair to say you agree with Peter Tatchell that Chris Goodall proves how disunited the Green Party is.
Do you therefore think your candidate in Oxford West and Abingdon should be disciplined, and if so how? Should he be removed as the candidate?
As Iv'e already answered this question, there is not much point continuing. I have given up waiting for you to answer with your opinion.
I have answered the question myself at http://greenreading.blogspot.com/2009/03/lib-dem-hypocrisy-antisemitism-for.html
This is a good overview of how Chris Goodall has been spun,
http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.com/2009/03/greens-still-oppose-nuclear.html
'Basically the message Chris seemed to be trying to get across is that we can meet CO2 targets without resorting to nuclear, but only if the Government acts immediately - if they don't then as a society we will be forced to choose between coal or nuclear.'
Please could you explain what disciplinary action
against Chris Goodall has been taken.
Why would disciplinary action be needed if it is only a matter of opponents spin?
What is the deadline for immediate action, in order that the choice between nuclear and coal can be avoided?
If you read the links posted you would know the answer already.
Do you think the Lib Dems will discipline the 3 members who think nuclear power is the answer?
You keep saying you answered the questions, but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what action you will take as a person in a responsible position.
Caroline Lucas said "In any party, you have a range of different views, but once selected as a parliamentary candidate, you have a particular responsibility."
However, you say in your second comment here that he is entitled to his personal opinion.
As you are also a candidate I assume you are involved in the regional council of your party, so will you therefore be actively opposing your leader or actively opposing your fellow candidate and your earlier statements when you decide what 'appropriate action' to take?
We have hundreds of candidates, we can't all be on the regional council. I am not on it anyway. The earlier quotes give the opinion of the leader of the party, Caroline Lucas MEP.
So there is no point asking the same question another 7 times, hoping for a different answer. And failing to give your opinion on anything, such as the 3 Lib Dem bloggers who are in favour of nuclear power.
Adrian, the question is simple: do you think Green candidate Chris Goodall should be reprimanded for his indiscipline?
I quoted your party leader who clearly stated that there is a difference between being an ordinary member of a political party and a responsible candidate.
So, do you agree with your leader that there is a difference, or do you stand by your comments?
Perhaps I now understand the reasons why you are not on your regional council.
Is this why Jane calls you the 'Orange Coward'?
http://janestheones.blogspot.com/2009/03/orange-coward.html
Perhaps you are tired and emotional?
I wouldn't presume to guess.
Do you consider hers an authoritative and reliable opinion?
She is more right than wrong. Do you have no opinion about her post?
If you won't answer my questions, and won't respond to Janes post, perhaps she is correct.
I have been in touch directly with Jane to tell her what I think of her post.
I told her she was factually inaccurate in her information and that her conclusions were consequently groundless, as your inferences are insulting.
If you hadn't noticed Jane likes being provocative and gained a certain reputation for which she was strongly criticised in the past.
Now please answer my questions.
If you want a more reliable view of what LibDems actually think about this issue why not listen to what members of the party actually have to say.
In those comments there is a far greater grasp of the debate than you seem to be aware and I think they speak far more eloquently for themselves than you are capable of presenting.
Maybe you could summarise this debate in a new post...
BTW why haven't you commented on your leader's comment that flying is as bad as knifing a person in the street?
I have seen what LDs have to say, and they don't all agree with your leaders, as you would know if you read my link earlier.
After a gap of 1 month you try again, but is their any point continuing to go round in circles? I've asked your opinion on several issues, you have failed to even attempt an answer. Perhaps you are an orange coward. That is my summary, no point in another post to say so.
Adrian,
The details of the debate are as important as the result.
It is simply not enough to say you are either for or against something if you want to be taken seriously, you must also be able to show you understand the issues at stake and how you would mitigate any consequences.
So it is strange that you repeat your attack on members of a different party for not toeing the party line during an open debate when you have openly disagreed with your own party leader on this thread with regard to the censure of your colleague.
You couldn't be any more inconsistent if you tried!
Did you read anything of my post OrangeC?
And I'm still waiting for your long promised response to the other post; http://greenreading.blogspot.com/2009/03/lib-dem-hypocrisy-antisemitism-for.html
I wont hold my breath though.
Sian Berry has also come out to say that Chris Goodall should not be a candidate for your party, so I wonder, are you prepared to change your mind or are you going to continue disagreeing with your leadership?
This provides an interesting discussion of the issues, with contributions from a number of prominent green bloggers.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world OrangeP, you make things up as you wish. And continue to fail to respond to the simplest of questions, despite your promises. See http://greenreading.blogspot.com/2009/03/lib-dem-hypocrisy-antisemitism-for.html
In this you reflect the LibDems, who think they are a great success when they loose control of West Berks Council and also their Newbury MP Rendell. In Reading they moved from the official opposition to the third strongest party. http://glenngoodall.mycouncillor.org.uk/2009/04/12/lib-dems-growing-strongly/ Says
'we are the strongest 3rd party in Britain for 80 years' In 1983 the Tories won with 42.44%, Lab a poor second with 27.58%, the LD very close at 25.38%.see http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/percentvote.htm
You can read Sians blog yourself rather than accept the Orange tint on events;
http://www.sianberry.org.uk/blog/2009-11-03-womenvsalphamales.html scroll to post 27
Post a Comment