Ahmadinejad: Good ideas from a bad person
As far back as the beginning of 2008, Gordon Brown supported the implementation of a nuclear energy strategy to go some way to meeting the challenges of climate change and the fast diminishing supply of carbon based energy resource, in the publication of the White Paper on Nuclear Energy (Meeting the Energy Challenge).
It has taken nearly 2 years to act upon this with the announcement last month by Business Secretary, Lord Mandleson, of a series of packages aimed at supporting a low carbon economy through nuclear energy investment in the Yorkshire and North West areas. How successful they will be remains to be seen as the types of investment appear to be aimed at prolonging the discussion (for example, £8m to upgrade the nuclear laboratories at Manchester University’s Dalton Nuclear Institute) rather than boosting a nuclear energy infrastructure which is declining with the impending decommissioning of a number of plants that are reaching the end of their lifecycle.
A more dramatic and, for those of us who remain somewhat wary of any suggestions coming out of Iran, more radical solution was proposed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now, before we dismiss his proposals, let’s reflect on his proposed solution to the current climate crisis, which was two-pronged.
First, he said that all countries should re-direct 10% of their military spend into a global environmental fund, which would dwarf the financial figures discussed at the conference.
Aside from the fact that many of the developed nations have their defence budgets tied up in wars/conflicts in areas that may lead the cynics to deduce that they are about securing foreign oil supplies and that Iran would very likely welcome a defence reduction by those states that might block future insurgency plans that it may have, it’s actually not a bad suggestion.
Second, Ahmadinejad said that restrictions on the deployment of nuclear energy should be loosened so that almost all states had access to this ‘clean’ form of energy, allowing fossil fuels to be used for other purposes such as producing pharmaceuticals and other useful products. Again, a great suggestion as long as we don’t interpret his proposal as being one that is designed to take the spotlight away from Iran’s hidden agenda (if that’s what it is) to build it’s own nuclear arsenal.
And that’s the problem here. Both suggestions have much to recommend them; the issue lies with the person tabling these proposals.
However, on the strength of the results from our own Lord Mandie, perhaps more thought should be put into realising the benefits of the Iran proposals. After all, whether we like it or not, carbon fuels are on the decline, prices are already rising (if somewhat insidiously) and we are fast approaching a day when nuclear energy needs to become a major contributor to our energy requirements in a way that France has already realised and acted upon (accounting, as it does, for about 78% of the country’s electrical power production). As a business owner, I need to know that the energy I require to fuel my business will not only be there, but will be affordable… and nuclear appears to be one of the solutions. Fail to engage with this issue at your peril.
