The big news this morning is that exit polls suggest Tony Blair will be re-elected to lead Britain for another 5 years. What does this mean for the environment?
Blair clearly cares about the environment and is concerned by what he sees as a situation of general and accelerating deterioration in the global environment. He has spoken about the need to “bring the environment, economic development and social justice together” and is particularly concerned about climate change.
During the election the Greens made much of the possibility that a future Labour government would commit Britain to a “nuclear future“.
The UK apparently has 14 ‘ageing’ nuclear power stations and Blair has not ruled out the possibility of a new generation of nuclear power stations on the basis that nuclear power is almost ‘carbon neutral’ and would help Britain meet its Kyoto targets.
ALSO TODAY (sent in from blog readers) …
Greenpeace in Court:
This week, opening statements were heard in Alaskan District Court in a case that charges Greenpeace with violating environmental law. Greenpeace is charged with criminal negligence by failing to have the proper oil spill response paperwork during an anti-logging campaign.
Today’s New York Times has an article about global dimming: “I think what could have happened is the dimming between the 1960’s and 1980’s counteracted the greenhouse effect,” Dr. Wild said. “When the dimming faded, the effects of the greenhouse gases became more evident. There is no masking by the dimming any more.”
A reader of this blog sent the link with the comment, “Actually, it is a clear contradiction, showing that nature (the Sun), not rising CO2, is responsible for Hansen’s ‘energy imbalance’.”