Why Pereira Maintains

You know the cultured, portly, lonely, sweaty, gentle, rather sad character in thrillers who is mostly indifferent to the heroes and villains alike (except to become mildly irritable when his work is interrupted by the machinations of the plot), and who ultimately bravely overcomes innate political apathy to help the heroes in some small but vital way, often resulting in fatal retribution by the villains? Yes, that man.

I've been listening to Derek Jacobi reading "Pereira Maintains" by Antonio Tabucchi, a novel that puts centre stage just such an archetypal character.

For those who've not read the book...

I'm not sure whether to recommend it. It's about the ruminations of the widowed culture editor of a small 1930s Lisbon newspaper. The story is slight: as an essentially incidental character, Pereira is inevitably mostly unaware of the romantic, political and thriller elements that swirl nearby, and we see everything from Pereira's perspective. So you might find it obscure.

But the novel provides an evocative portrait of 1938 Lisbon; it provides some insight into choices in relation to censorship and cultural resistance that can  faced by those whose country is falling into dictatorship; and it's a fascinating exercise to have this thriller archetype made central. I particularly like the way we're as much in the dark about events and characters as the cerebral but studiously unaware Pereira.

For those who've read the book...

*** SPOILER ALERT!!! ***


In the end, not only are we left in the dark about much of what has occurred and why it has happened, but we also don't know what happens to Pereira after his act of rebellion. There's no God's-eye view, no denouement in the library, no epilogue.

In one sense there is nothing to know: Pereira has fulfilled his role in the thriller by publishing Monteiro Rossi's obituary; that story is finished.

But it is natural to want to know what happens to the lead character in a story we have been reading, even if this story is a small part of a bigger story. Indeed, as mentioned above, very often there are unfortunate repercussions for this archetype, although perhaps usually only when the hero is still around to avenge the death.

Did Pereira escape Lisbon? Or is he lying dead at the bottom of a stairwell? Did the thugs make good their threat to deal with him as they dealt with Monteiro Rossi? Is he sprawled, bloodied, broken but alive, on the hard floor of a Lisbon prison, waiting in pain for yet one more in a seeming endless series of brutal interrogations. Is he sitting with Dr Cardoso at some French seaside café, eating seafood salad and sipping mineral water, while secretly yearning for the lemonades and omelettes aux fines herbes of the Café Orquidea? Or was he shot in the back of the head without warning, on his way to the train?

The work is a translation from the Italian, so I cannot be sure, but the recurring yet unexplained phrase "Pereira maintains" gives a clue. He's alive. But it's not clear whether we are hearing Pereira maintaining key aspects of his testimony in the face of an apparatchik's relentlessly sceptical interrogation, or in response to Dr Cardoso's gentle curiosity about  Pereira's case as an insight into the psyche as a confederation of souls.

This ambiguity is delicious. The archetype returns to obscurity, and we are left with the feeling that we may never be sure what is happening, even at key moments in the history of a nation or in the life of a person.

Personally, I like to think we are being told Pereira's story by Dr Cardoso at a café in St Malo. Partly because Pereira's testimony is more elegiac than factual. Partly because the things Pereira maintains are more often about his awakening of conscience than about his knowledge of plots against the regime. But mostly because I'm an unreconstructed romantic. Or so I maintain.

Update:
Details of the music used in the Radio 4 reading.

Radical Euroscepticism has resulted in a massive failure of diplomacy

Experience has taught me that scepticism is an extremely healthy worldview, so long as it is tempered by a touch of pragmatism and a generosity of spirit. But, if you are arguing with someone who appears so sceptical that they will reject any possible mutual search for common ground, the motivation to continue to engage with that person rapidly evaporates.

Many in the British Conservative party have been pumping out antagonistic posturing sceptical rhetoric about the EU for decades. The current economic crisis has caused the heads of European governments to finally lose patience with such Eurosceptic rhetoric, and the consequences are clear to see.

The UK has become isolated from its partners in Europe: Britain has been forced into a position in which it alone has to veto proposals accepted by the rest. Without the Eurosceptic rhetoric, Britain would have been able to develop allies in its alternative view of how to tackle the crisis. Indeed, it is possible that such proposals might never have come forward in the first place if other countries had perceived Britain as interested in pursuing compromise solutions. Instead, when David Cameron made some modest suggestions, he did not have a friend in the room.

As Andrew Rawnsley has written, "Even Eurosceptics will soon find that there is nothing splendid about isolation. Our capacity to shape the future of the world's wealthiest economic bloc, which is also our most important export market, has just been dramatically diminished. This will have consequences not just for Britain's influence in Europe, but its standing in the world." The only thing Cameron has blocked is British influence.

Radical Euroscepticism - the kind of scepticism that exhibits itself as rampant antagonism towards the EU - has resulted in a massive failure of diplomacy. It has meant that David Cameron has been unable to build relationships within the EU. This historic diplomatic failure may have long-lasting repercussions for British jobs.

Acknowledgements
Photo: "Frog" by Jonathan.vail

Why bash the bishop over Occupy Exeter?

There's been a good-natured occupation of Exeter's Cathedral Green by the Occupy movement. Here's a video of them moving in, accompanied by a friendly and constructive speech by one of the clergy:

Photos and another video are at the Exeter anti-cuts alliance website.

Now I'm conflicted about the Occupy movement. This is not what democracy looks like to me.  I don't want decisions about the future of my city, country and planet to be taken by those groups who shout angriest and loudest that they speak for everyone. And I'm angry that many people have failed to engage in our democratic processes in the past. However, the movement has its heart in the right place when it attacks corporate greed and inequality, it has captured imaginations, and it has real potential to help more people engage constructively in these issues.

But I note the spin by The Telegraph and others on comments made by the Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish. He has said plainly that he is very sympathetic to the questions raised by Occupy Exeter folks. He echoes the warmth of the cleric in the above video. The bishop also notes the protest appears misdirected at the church. This is positive. A key message that Occupy Exeter is trying to get out there is that this isn't about the church, but about the failure of our financial sector. The bishop is a thoughtful figure to be engaged with, not the enemy.


Yet The Telegraph portrays him as "dismissing 'copycat' protests", and praises his "robust stance". The BBC emphasizes the bishop's concern that this looks like a protest against the church, rather than his friendliness to the cause.

However, Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, of Exeter University's Theology department, seems to have taken this spin at face value. She has tweeted:

"Bishop of Exeter against #occupyexeter: 'Each day we will remind protesters that this is sacred space'. Jesus would probab be ashamed of him"

The bishop is clear he would rather there weren't protesters on Cathedral Green, but he and his clergy have gone out of their way to engage with Occupy folk, to offer practical help, and to highlight how the church shares a similar mission. To say the bishop is "against" Occupy Exeter is therefore simplistic and misrepresents his views.

More importantly, it is divisive to portray the bishop as an enemy. Claiming that Jesus would be ashamed of him is an unhelpful insult. The bishop's status means that his sympathy with the issues being raised could carry some weight with many people who have so far been left cold by the Occupy movement. Let's build support, not barricades.

When councillors get fixated on "progress"

John Lewis is coming to Exeter. That's terrific news. Everyone's delighted. Great success. Congratulations all round.

Unfortunately, officers and councillors of the County Council and the City Council are planning a weird scheme (pdf document) to make the road outside John Lewis one-way. It's at the point where New North Road joins Paris Street, an area known (apparently) as London Inn Square.

The proposal is to remove the route marked with a red line

What's so weird about that, you might ask. After all, the road has 22,000 pedestrians crossing it daily. It "acts as a physical barrier between the main shopping area and Sidwell Street", and "Sidwell St / Paris St has seen 20 collisions in a 3 year period (14 involving pedestrians)". Moreover, "People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city." (All quotes from the scheme flyer linked above.)

Yes, fine. It would be better for cars not to be cutting through the shopping area at all. But the big question is: Where will the traffic go then?

What the proposed scheme mostly doesn't fix

Before I come to the question of where the traffic will go instead, I want to look at that "20 collisions in a 3 year period" statistic. It's potentially very misleading. There's no indication whether this refers just to the immediate area affected by the proposed scheme or to the whole of Sidwell Street and Paris Street.

And this ambiguity matters: the plethora of signs and road markings at the top of Paris Street and the intersection between Sidwell Street and Cheeke Street are dreadful, with different rules for cars, buses, taxis and bicycles.

Paris Street will be unchanged

So, for example, Paris Street is one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. Drivers who want to go straight on have to cut in front of buses leaving a bus stop at a pedestrian crossing; a crossing that also has 3 sets of traffic lights, two with a "straight on" filter (so the red lights confusingly only apply to the right-hand turn); and at just at that spot when cars are having to uncomfortably squeeze in front of the buses (and take in all the lights and road markings), a bike box, some bike racks, and a route sign suddenly become visible (they're likely to be obscured by a bus before that point). The route sign, by the way, tells you nothing about what happens if you turn right, but lots about what's straight on (Crediton, Tiverton, railway stations and the University) and if it wasn't visible until you're at the lights, you're also likely to be in the wrong lane for going straight on, so you'll somehow have to break lane discipline, while taking account of pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicles all doing different things. Meanwhile the cycle lanes come and go.

Paris Street was two-way not so long ago, and it was all much less confusing. There was also a central island for pedestrians in New North Road, which the council removed.

Incidentally, having a taxi rank right next to this confusing semi-one-way intersection is also daft.

Meanwhile, inadequate signs at Cheeke Street mean that cars sometimes go the wrong way up Sidwell Street, a route on which only buses and taxis are allowed. In fact there are two cars in Google Streetview doing precisely that. They end up having to turn right out of Sidwell Street into New North Road. I once saw a small boy almost mown down crossing New North Road when the pedestrian light was green. It's possible the driver had gone through a red light, but I think it's more plausible that the lights in Sidwell Street assumed that buses would be going straight on into the High Street, rather than turning right.

Wrong

Wrong

As I say, the proposed scheme mostly wouldn't fix these threats to safety, although, to be fair, the layout of the taxi rank would be improved, and most traffic would be removed from Sidwell Street between the High Street and Cheeke Street.

Where will the traffic go?

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Encouraged route in blue (Bonhay Road, Western Way)

At peak times, 300 cars an hour travel along the route to be closed. So what will happen to this traffic?

Firstly, the councils say that they will "encourage drivers crossing the city to use more appropriate roads such as Bonhay Road and Western Way".

I can imagine that suiting people driving from the areas around Crediton, Tiverton and Exeter St David's station, although the perennial bottleneck that is Exe Bridges might be a reason why they are not using Bonhay Road currently. People driving from the areas around Exeter College and the University might take more persuasion.

My guess is, though (and it'd be nice if the councils published their research so that we can be working with actual data rather than guesses), that most of the traffic going east via New North Road
originates far from easy access to Bonhay Road or Western Way. They will be heading to places like the hospital, the business parks, industrial estates, edge-of-city retail parks and the M5. A route via Bonhay Road and Western Way is going to seem a big diversion. Moreover, buses from the Cowley Bridge direction (the north-west of the city) will still need to get to the bus station, just off Paris Street.

In fact the councils estimate that "half of the existing traffic turning left into Sidwell Street is expected to divert onto Blackall Road and York Road".

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Likely alternative in blue (Blackall Rd, Pennsylvania Rd, York Rd, Summerland St)
Note the bus station is off Bramfylde Street, hence all the bus stops there

This alternative route is unarguably residential, with four zebra crossings, two mini roundabouts, and several severe speed bumps. St James is a conservation area, but this seems to count for nothing.

Blackall Road is residential

Mini roundabout and zebra crossing in Blackall Road

The alternative route also features a left-hand turn from Pennsylvania Road into York Road that often results in long waits by cars coming out of York Road and by cars turning into York Road from the other direction. And at the top end of York Road, there are often jams by the traffic lights. This is not a route that can sustain much more traffic. Yet it is estimated that 150 an hour additional vehicles would be travelling along these roads if this scheme is approved.

The junction of Pennsylvania Road, York Road and Longbrook Street The junction of York Road, Sidwell Street  and Summerland Street

This route also goes directly past the gates of the local primary school.


It's at this point that the councils need to be reminded of their own stern warning:

"People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city."

The councils trumpet the importance of making it easier for people to cross the road and of minimising air pollution, but somehow this doesn't apply to the children at the school.

Another likely alternative route is via Longbrook Street and then (again) up York Road. This is again a largely residential street.

Longbrook Street

So what are our councillors doing?

The ward that will suffer from the proposed scheme is St James. St James has two Liberal Democrat city councillors (Natalie Cole and Kevin Mitchell). The City Council is in minority Labour control. Labour is strongly targeting this ward. The election is in May 2012.

But it would be too simplistic to suggest that it's just a case of Labour hoping St James residents will punish sitting city councillors for failing to stop this scheme. St James also has a Liberal Democrat county councillor (Philip Brock) and the County Council is held by the Conservatives. Moreover, an improved area around John Lewis could be trumpeted as a Conservative success by a Conservative challenger to the sitting Labour MP.

Meanwhile, the three councillors for St James (Cole, Mitchell and Brock) support a further alternative proposal that sends traffic down Longbrook Street and then right along King William Street. This alternative avoids the majority of the residential areas and the school, but still sends traffic along quiet streets, and also past the front door of a community centre.

The Labour candidate for the forthcoming city elections (Keith Owen) notes the concerns of residents, expressed forcefully at a meeting last month when council officers explained the scheme. Yet he is careful not to indicate his opposition to the scheme. [But see the update below] When it comes to planning matters, Labour councillors in Exeter tend to vote en bloc, often in favour of development, rather than each individual making up his or her own mind on the merits of the particular case.

None of these councillors seems to be arguing the merits of the status quo, on the basis of the scheme's damage to the quality of life of St James residents. [Again, see the update below]

Many Exeter people want Paris Street made two-way again

It also seems that none of the councillors is arguing that the decision to make Paris Street one-way was a huge mistake, and should be reversed. Rather than travelling a few hundred yards to get to the bus station, bus passengers were sent a long way round, clogging up Sidwell Street. The new proposal sends bus passengers on an even bigger diversion, via narrow residential streets. Taxi drivers are also unhappy with the current situation. Moreover, Sidwell Street is clearly currently more dangerous for pedestrians and road users than it was when Paris Street was two-way. It would be good to know how the figure of 7 collisions a year compares with the rate before Paris Street was made one-way.

Over the past decade there have been large numbers of changes to the road layout in the area of the new John Lewis. And yet somehow it is still worth spending up to £2m on yet another scheme, at a time when the County Council is implementing cuts of £40m, on top of £55m last year. It has been claimed that John Lewis would not come to Exeter if Paris Street were to be made two-way again. Well John Lewis is coming. Has a commitment been made on Paris Street?

In Exeter, the quality of decision-making when it comes to planning decisions is very poor. Just read the minutes of planning meetings, or go along to one. Attendance is variable; details are glossed over; reasoning is typically nebulous or tautologous; officers' opinions are often accepted uncritically; "progress" is automatically seen to be a good thing, even if it isn't actually progress.

Parties can afford to make these kinds of cavalier decisions, because it is just one ward out of many. But the real question is how councillors get fixated on a particular idea as representing "progress". Is it that they get jazzed up by grandiose words in "vision" documents? Or a desire to leave their mark on the city? Do they somehow talk themselves into corners through macho posturing? Or are they somehow intimidated by developers, officials, lawyers, or business imperatives?

I don't know. I doubt it's any of these reasons; and it's rather than councillors simply believe that this is the best way forward. But in that case, rising above the issue of whether this proposed scheme is sensible or not, is a bigger concern: I resent the fact that councillors and would-be councillors treat residents disrespectfully by failing to provide well-reasoned arguments for their decisions.

So come on councillors and would-be councillors, whatever ward or electoral division you represent. Your decision on this issue is affecting my community. You owe us an account of your personal decision.


Update 3 Dec 2011

I'm pleased to note from this week's Express and Echo that at least some councillors are giving the proposal careful consideration.

Jill Owen, county councillor (Labour) for Priory and St Leonard's, comments on the displacement of traffic from Sidwell Street:

"I don't think the displacement issue has been made clear enough to everyone and I hope that it is looked at very clearly and in great detail. This is a very important scheme but it seems it is being done with indecent haste. If we do something that is not right then it will be very difficult to turn back."

Meanwhile, James Taghdissian, city councillor (Conservative) for Polsloe, notes that Mount Pleasant Road, Stoke Hill Road and Prince Charles Road might well turn into rat-runs.

And last week's Express and Echo carried a very welcome letter from the Labour candidate for the St James ward on the city council, Keith Owen. He comes out as opposed to the plans, and gives clear arguments about the various options. I'm delighted to note that he makes a case for the status quo.

These proposals go before Devon's cabinet on 14 December. I hope they will take the concerns of residents seriously.

Tintin and the Wreck of the Treasured Memory

I had been prepared for the new Tintin film to be dreadful. The many excoriating articles about the film in The Guardian and elsewhere had set up low expectations.

The reviews though were surprisingly vague on what exactly was wrong with the film. They tended to be strong on highly emotive condemnations and amorphous pseudo-intellectual critique, but weak on actual details.

And the film wasn't as bad as all that. Lots of humour. Good voice performances by the cast. Ambitious set-pieces. Great opening credits. A rollicking score.

But, in all honesty, I didn't enjoy the film much. I rarely felt invested in it. In fact I was positively alienated at times. And after about an hour I couldn't wait for the film to end. Not a good sign.

And that's crazy, because Spielberg is an amazingly talented director. I'm a huge fan of each of the writers, Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish. The cast is fantastic. The composer, cinematographer and editor are also top rank.

So what was it about the film that made me feel this way?

I'm not 100% sure. I think a lot had to do with the film lacking the huge charm of the books. Of course film is a very different medium from graphic novels, but I'm not a comic snob, and I don't have a feverish devotion to Hergé's originals that blinds me to their flaws. But I did enjoy the originals; whereas the film jarred.

Now I've no idea if this charm gap is something to do with the storyline or dialogue or direction or music or acting or something else, because I couldn't get past the distancing caused by the 3D effect and the 3D glasses, and, most of all, the famous Uncanny Valley.

For me, the characters ended up creepy, not charming.

There were other problems I had with the film - Captain Haddock's accent seemed wrong, the action rather too involved at times, the self-empowerment guff misplaced, the theme music forgettable - but I suspect these didn't make much difference to my enjoyment.

To avoid me being completely negative, here's an idea for an experiment the producers might consider. Allow freelance animators to re-render the visuals in their own way, giving them a cut of additional sales their work generates. I suspect that, all else being equal, more people would download a traditionally animated version than your sophisticated motion capture version. Go on. Dare you.

The angrier we protest, the simpler the answers

The Exeter Anti-Cuts Alliance sums up "a momentous week in global protest terms". The blinkers are off:

People can see that their governments, everywhere implementing the same austerity measures, are in the hands and the pay of the global corporations and banks and their (largely invisible and unaccountable) wealthy owners.

Occupy, Uncut, anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists, Anonymous... all are angry about the corrupt system that has resulted in the world's economic woes. You're angry with the politicians. You're angry with the bankers. You're angry with the rich. You're angry about the cuts.

Except... you know what? I'm pretty angry with you. You failed to get behind the only party that was warning about the impending economic crisis and bankers' behaviour; the only party that's against illegal wars and an authoritarian state; the only party taking climate change seriously; and the only party that wants to improve our democracy.

So you cynically failed to engage with the arguments; you failed to rally support for democratic change; and you bleat about "betrayal" and "propping up the Tories" when the reality is that the people were divided on what should be done. We need honest politicians to work together. But you have worked yourself up into a frenzy that dictates that all politicians are venal and that anything less than an automatic transmission of belief into action constitutes a betrayal.

You are holier-than-thou and angrily shout and protest as if you speak for everyone who cares about these matters, as if we don't live in some kind of democracy, imperfect though it is. That you see yourselves as equal to the heroes of Tahrir Square, Tunis, the Libyan NTC and Syria is ludicrous.

Right. You care. Good. Now take a breath. Stop with the sloganeering, the posturing and the negativity. And think how you can engage constructively, collaboratively and cleverly. We can win this one.

Why is Chris Huhne hitting the nuclear button?

Homer Simpson is the perfect person to be put in charge of safety of a nuclear power plant.


Why?


Because he's made so many mistakes, there are no new mistakes for him to make.

OK, so this reasoning is not exactly analogous with why Chris Huhne believes that, despite all the mistakes that have been made, it's a good idea to start building new nuclear reactors again.

But he does have a quote from Winston Churchill that he feels has resonance with how the British have tried to exploit nuclear energy over the past 50 years:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Perhaps Churchill can be excused this barb, given that he was half-American.

Yesterday, Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave a speech to the Royal Society explaining why the future of nuclear power will be different to its past. He was explicit about the many mistakes that have been made in relation to nuclear power, but averred that nuclear power should be a key part of our future energy mix.

His speech makes five main points:


1. We're still paying for the electricity that nuclear power generated in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

In particular:

• In the UK, there is currently enough high-level nuclear waste "to fill three Olympic swimming pools. We have enough intermediate-level waste to fill a supertanker, and a lot more low-level waste."
• We have the world's largest plutonium stocks, which have to be guarded, converted and stored for many years.
• The government spends £2 billion every year, cleaning up this mess.
• The costs of decommissioning are still increasing. Now over £50 billion. 

2. Any new nuclear construction must be without public subsidy.

Huhne repeats the Coalition Agreement's vital principle that any new nuclear construction cannot have public subsidy. Whether "Feed-In Tariffs", the Carbon Floor Price or insurance liability count as public subsidy is not made clear.


3. Despite the costs and risks, nuclear should be a key part of our future energy mix.

The reason he gives for this is that "we face the greater risk of accelerating climate change if we do not embark on another generation of nuclear power. Time is running out. Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low carbon electricity".

Moreover, by 2023, all but one of our current nuclear reactors reach the end of their lives, leaving an 18% gap in the electricity supply. So that gap has to be plugged.

Huhne cites costings for the three large-scale low carbon technologies:

technology	£ per megawatt hour
offshore wind	130
gas with carbon capture	95
nuclear	66

These figures include waste and decommissioning costs. He also notes that world gas prices have risen hugely over the last year, and are expected to be volatile. He argues that there are considerable uncertainties about promising renewable technologies such as wave and tidal, and costs remain high.

So he concludes that nuclear is the cheapest low carbon source of electricity.


4. A portfolio of energy generation technologies is needed.

We've been wrong before about the economics of nuclear power. We can be wrong again: "The industry still has to prove that it can build these enormous investments on time and to budget."

A "broad portfolio" of low carbon technologies is therefore needed, to handle the economic risk.


5. We must learn the lessons of the past.

And this is where Huhne invokes Churchill's quip above about how you can count on Americans to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities. In relation to nuclear policy, Huhne says, "we have made pretty much every mistake human ingenuity could devise. And boy, are we British inventive."

Specifically:

• Fostering a culture of secrecy in relation to strategic national decisions.
• Conflating energy needs with military needs, and so leading to confused, expensive design decisions.
• Letting the drive for innovation prevent the gains to be made from standardising designs: all 11 Magnox power stations were built to different specifications, for example.
• Failing to take into account the environmental impact of nuclear power stations.
• Failing to devise a costed plan for cleaning up afterwards, heaping costs on future generations.
• Letting waste pile up.
• Setting up a body that was supposed simultaneously to give the Government impartial advice and to promote nuclear energy, resulting in a lack of proper oversight.
• Failing to ensure that regulatory systems were geared towards long-term protection.
• Letting costs spiral without proper scrutiny.
• Hiding subsidies in complex financial arrangements.

My reflections on this speech

I'm not at all convinced by the cost arguments presented here. Even if cost differentials turn out to be roughly as quoted over the next 30-50 years, fossil fuels and uranium are finite resources and so are not likely to be cutting-edge 22nd Century solutions. If we are serious about sustainability for future generations, I would have thought we need to focus our technological efforts on harnessing renewable resources.

This is a bit of an over-simplistic cop-out on my part though, because a lot hangs on accurate energy cost estimates. Such estimations are complex, well beyond my capabilities to unpick, and controversial. They need to take into account numerous hard-to-quantify risks and trends. But several authoritative sources have come up with estimates in which nuclear is not always the most cost-effective low carbon technology (e.g. Mott MacDonald, 2011). Of course in all discussions of such calculations there's also political game-playing, vested industry interests, scaremongering and so on, most of which serve to baffle non-experts like me into seeking simplistic grounds on which to decide.

Furthermore, although the commitment to "no public subsidy" sounds like it will finally put the viability claims of the nuclear industry to the test, governments have a long-standing habit of sneaking in subsidies by the back door. And this industry has a, as Huhne puts it, "terrible reputation for secrecy". Huhne says, of course, that he wants to encourage open competition, rather than monopolistic practices, and to ensure tough, transparent regulation, rather than a slipshod, secretive industry. And that's great; but what are the grounds for hoping that this government can get this right in the nuclear industry when the governments so clearly have got it wrong in the past in this industry and in others?

Nevertheless, on secrecy, I do wonder to what extent I'm still subconsciously influenced by that terrific nuclear thriller from the 1980s, Edge of Darkness:


But most importantly, in relation to climate change, the time-scale for nuclear looks wrong. If Britain started building 10 new nuclear reactors now, they would deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025 [1]. Action is required now. As Greenpeace says, "It's too little too late at too high a price."

In addition, heat and transport energy needs are largely not addressed by nuclear power, and it would only supply a fraction of our electricity. So it is difficult to see why it is getting this level of attention as a way of addressing CO2 emissions. There has been huge investment into nuclear research and development in comparison with the research into renewables. At the same time, there are serious challenges associated with the idea that a huge investment in renewables and energy efficiency could be enough to cover both the lost nuclear power and the fossil fuels we need to stop using. So I don't have the answers, but I don't think that nuclear is the solution.

(These reflections are based on Huhne's speech. So I'm leaving to one side the familiar issues of aesthetics, safety, waste management, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and uranium mining)

Over the years I've moved from equanimity about nuclear power to ambivalence to scepticism to opposition. I'm still open to contrary arguments. But it seems to me that appearing to have "exhausted all other possibilities" does not imply that what we do next constitutes "the right thing". We are ingenious in our ability to create new ways of failing. And I'm not yet convinced that there are strong enough grounds to be confident we'll avoid repeating old ways of failing.


Acknowledgments

• Hat-tip to Ian Eiloart for the link to Chris Huhne's speech.
• Image: "Windscale" by tim_d.
• Video: Edge of Darkness montage by MSoundtracks.