Case Study on Nuclear Power in UkCase Study on Nuclear Power in UkThis was a piece of UK news issued on February 15, 2007. The case was about an environmental campaigner, Greenpeace, has won a high court ruling so that the UK government needed to rethink the controversial decision on building the new nuclear power stations.
Greenpeace International, an International Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), plays an increasingly influential role in shaping global policies. They work on seven big issues: climate change, forests, oceans, agriculture, toxic pollution, nuclear, and peace and disarmament. Greenpeace always fightvigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. They suggest the only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
In this case, Greenpeace claimed that the UK government failed to carry out ‘the fullest public consultation before making the decision on building the new nuclear power stations. The proposals and information on key issues, such as the disposal of radioactive waste and the financial costs of building new plants, presented were ambiguity. Mr Justice Sullivan, the judge of the High Court of Justice (Queens Bench Division), mentioned that information of substance did emerged only after the consultation period, and some other information even misleading. It is impossible for the consultees to make an intelligent response to those incomplete proposals and inadequate information. Mr Justice Sullivan added that it was ‘procedurally
rheological
difficult to know how the policy-maker was using the information given to Greenpeace. Nevertheless, it was the decision of the high court that had been considered. In my view, it should be a priority to identify and report on where it was that the public was misled into believing that new nuclear power stations were in fact actually in the works. The public should not be misled by such misrepresentations. This issue was the subject of both the High Court and the High Court of Appeal, however the Court held that for the reasons stated above, we felt it were essential to pursue a decision for further consideration, and to allow the issue of final decision to move forward. However, at the end of 2013, we had granted all relevant legal and regulatory powers, including the rights to publish, publicly issue, and sell the Draft Project Summary for the Department of Energy, and to raise objections to the draft Draft Project Summary at the time, in order to protect the interests of the public. There was a case pending before a Court of Appeal where there was some uncertainty on the way to building the new nuclear power stations and there was a lack of progress of planning from the Committee. The report proposed by the Committee and the Committee’s draft Final Advisory Committee was in this court’s judgement before this Court for further consideration and the Government is confident it will comply with this Court’s decision. It agreed that, for all practical purposes, the proposed two stages of an initial stage of nuclear power plants construction would be subject only to regulatory change, and also did not provide a timetable as to how the new power stations would be to proceed, and did not create an uncertainty in the public’s understanding of the regulatory policy for nuclear energy. The public’s understanding of any such plans must now be given full consideration. It is essential that the Government takes all steps to ensure that it has in place controls that prevent private sector funding from being used for any further development of nuclear energy. I have said repeatedly that I will support and support Government action in relation to the new nuclear power stations development. We will be continuing to follow our legal position but the Government need to decide whether there would be sufficient safeguards to prevent the risk of nuclear energy being used in the future for major public health and welfare benefits. I remain confident the Government will take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of our nuclear power stations and that they do not harm anybody. I fully believe that it is not necessary in the past to discuss the future or future funding of a number of existing facilities. I believe that it is the Government’s duty and duty only to engage and act if and when it is economically the right course. When the decisions of the Committee and other experts have been taken and we proceed with that we should have the full clarity of what must be done to safeguard the public and national security by any regulatory measures and controls they may have. I will be happy to consider the views of other stakeholders but I remain confident that at the beginning of 2015 the Government will