Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2) — (2nd Allotted Day)
Points of Order
12:50 pm
Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton, Conservative)
I do not want us to get bogged down in a rehash of the energy statement. This country needs new nuclear power stations just to maintain the percentage of the power that is currently provided by nuclear. The key to this debate is that Europe as a whole is already 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy, 25 per cent. of which comes from Russia. Both of those percentages are rising. As a result, it is crucial that the treaty provision on solidarity is supported. I welcome what the treaty proposes, and I want to hear much more about what the Government will do to drive forward a more cohesive energy policy at the European Union level.
Annotations
Jona Hug
Posted on 31 Jan 2008 10:16 pm (Report this annotation)
This Country seems to be unable to successfully clear up the radioactive contaminated beaches, wild life eateries and rivers that have been polluted from our Nuclear industries.
Likewise, other than denying a link between Nuclear Energy and cancers like childhood Leukemia, the Government is unable to prevent such high clusters of cancers near Nuclear establishments.
Neither is it able to solve the world wide problem of long term Radioactive waste disposal that will hinder future generations .
Why Ian Taylor states that This country needs new nuclear power stations just to maintain the percentage of the power that is currently provided by nuclear, is absurdly questionable!
The opportunity of decommissioning those Nuclear Power station which are nearing the end of their 30 year production cycle, poses enough of a problem to health and safety of public environmental ecology and those whom are employed by the NDA. As to dose the problem of what to do with the different types of Radioactive waste from highly radioactive solid waste, to intermediately Radioactive liquid waste and Low level radioactive waste, such as gloves ect. all pose a significant health hazard and practical dilemma as to how to dispose of such waste so as not to course contamination and risk to health of public and ecological environment.
The fact that Nuclear Power stations are coming to the end of their service, should be embraced by those responsible for securing clean, safe adaptable and environmentally friendly energy, Not replacing decrepit nuclear Power stations for new ones, in the light of uranium's unsustainable nature, the proven biological damage from continues radioactive discharges to the environment and everdance of increased cancer rates, the risk of more Nuclear proliferation, the risk of accidents and serious Nuclear incidents, the problem of radioactive waste and the gigantic costs of constructing, decommissioning and waste storage!
The cons just don't add up!
Is it not about time the Government emitted responsibility for the Problems nuclear courses, and invests in renewable alternative energy like a comprehensive mix of wind, solar, biogas, hydro and wave, rather than deciding the general public, pushing a Nuclear Burdon on to future generations, endangering our health and natural resources with radioactive contamination to our Seas, Farmlands and atmospheare.