Livingstone fears new generation of nuclear power stations

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone says a decision to build a new generation of nuclear power stations would be an expensive and dangerous mistake.

He pointed to a poll which showed over two thirds of Londoners opposed to the transport of nuclear waste and nearly three quarters opposed to building nuclear power stations in their locality.

Commenting on press reports indicating a shift in government thinking in favour of nuclear power, Mr Livingstone said: "It will be the great misjudgement of our generation to go back down the nuclear road, which would saddle our children and grandchildren with the consequences.

"I would say to Tony Blair and every politician who has the ability to influence the future energy strategy of our country that giving the green light to nuclear power would be an expensive and dangerous mistake that is simply not the solution to the problem of climate change.

'The government will get it disastrously wrong if it reactivates the nuclear option. We need a solution to climate change that protects the environment not damages it.

'There is already huge public opposition to nuclear, with the most recent poll of Londoners showing sixty seven per cent against nuclear waste being transported through densely populated areas like London.

"Seventy two per cent of Londoners say they oppose the building of a nuclear power station in their local area and I am sure these figures would be substantially higher in areas where nuclear power stations might actually be built.

"The reason for the massive opposition to nuclear power is that it is a proven threat to our environment, as the nuclear fall-out from Chernobyl continues to show. The world's best engineers have yet to find a safe method of dealing with nuclear waste. Fall-out from Chernobyl is still claiming lives and contaminating land, twenty years on.

"It is not even the case that nuclear power will solve the problem of climate change.

"Even if we doubled the number of nuclear power stations over the next twenty years - a barely credible proposition - it would cut carbon emissions by just eight per cent. According to the best scientific evidence we need cuts of three or four times this.

"After a decade of fine words the government needs to take steps that will really tackle climate change - moving from inefficient centralised power generation to decentralised combined heat, power and cooling; a massive programme of energy efficiency in homes and offices; real investment in renewable energy; and serious measures to reduce pollution from transport.

"These are the environmentally-friendly solutions to climate change that unlike nuclear power do not represent a massive threat to our environment."