Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty The group, brought together by a former minister, Alan Whitehead, is using the same tactic as the backbench opponents of government plans to establish semi-independent state secondary schools, publishing their own proposals in an effort to steer policy, rather than oppose it outright. Mr Whitehead is one of the authors of the alternative education white paper, which set out the terms on which the rebels would accept Downing Street's reforms.
The new 9,000 word manifesto being drafted by the backbenchers will set out the case for continued investment in renewable energy, rather than taking "a dangerous leap with nuclear". It will be published in February, as the government's energy review gets under way with a consultation document in January.
Many Labour MPs fear that Mr Blair privately favours renewing investment in nuclear energy as the most secure way of combating climate change, in the face of evidence that global warming is speeding up and that domestic programmes to cut carbon emissions are failing. Ministers believe the economics of nuclear energy are improving as gas and oil prices rise.
The manifesto is being drawn up by Labour backbenchers with a background in green politics who have traditionally supported the government's reforms, and who cannot be dismissed as serial rebels. Those involved include two members of the environmental audit select committee, David Chaytor and Colin Challen, who hope to use the committee's imminent report to press the government to spell out the costs of nuclear power to consumers. They will also press for a pledge that no decision on nuclear power will be taken without a vote in parliament.
The group claims the indirect support of the environment minister Elliot Morley, who in previously unreported remarks told a seminar organised by the socialist environmentalist group Sera: "I don't think nuclear development is economically viable, and since no one is offering to pay, it would certainly need to have financial support from the government. Is it the right time for that? Should we not be putting this money into renewables and other efficiency measures? I would prefer to see investment in carbon-capture technologies."
The manifesto will set out a timescale showing how the contribution to the UK's energy supply of the current nuclear power stations could be run down over the next 20 years while renewables, including micro-generation and wind power, could be built up. A section will also argue that uranium provides no greater long-term security of supply than renewables or gas.
Mr Whitehead said yesterday: "If there was a free market in energy, ie no assistance for new nuclear build, no long term promise of a guaranteed market and no minimum price for nuclear, no one would build a new nuclear station. Nuclear is not carbon-free, nor is it renewable. We have been promised by government that there is a debate to be had, and no decisions have been made. But there is a change in attitude in government. Only three years ago a white paper pretty well ruled out nuclear, but it is now centre stage."
In a speech this week, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks suggested that the status quo in the energy market was not an option, saying: "By 2020 we may be importing over 80% of our annual gas requirements - last year it was around 10%. We need to ask ourselves now if we are comfortable with this scenario as investment decisions that will shape much of our energy mix for the next two or three decades ahead will be made in the next 10 years or so. Government needs to give the market the clarity it requires to ensure that these investment decisions reflect our goals for reducing carbon emissions and achieving reasonable energy security."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1672437,00.html
