Taking the nuclear option – would it save the planet or kill it?

Two MEPs express their opinions on climate change

Nuclear power is a false economy for the planet and a boon for terrorists and rogue states, says Jean Lambert

If the EU manages to meet its modest Kyoto targets, it will be due to a mixture of deliberate action and the effects of enlargement, as large-scale polluting industries close or clean up.

We have still not fully embraced the implications of climate change in our everyday lives. We plan for climate change at the same time as greater mobility (including airport expansion) and more international trade: rather as the EU supports tobacco production and campaigns against smoking. The European Parliament itself has no energy policy for its buildings, is only just in the process of introducing eco-management and auditing schemes and has only just acknowledged the ecological absurdity of working in both Brussels and Strasbourg.

The Energy Efficiency of Buildings Directive could have a positive effect if member states are ambitious in their implementation; Parliament has supported good renewable energy targets; the end-of-life directives are closing the production loops and we are moving on appliance efficiency. But we have no coherent training strategy to ensure we can deliver on these proposals and really integrate the environment into all policies and practices of the Union as the treaty enjoins us to do.

At the end of this month, there will be a major meeting in Montreal to debate, and maybe decide, what should be the next stage in tackling climate change after the Kyoto agreement which extends to 2012.

It is essential that the next set of targets is based on up-to-date science and is designed not to exceed a global average temperature increase of 2�C. We should bring the newly industrialising nations such as China and India within the agreement (if you can afford nuclear weapons, you can afford to tackle climate change), after all, we all have to live with the costs and consequences of climate chaos. We need to take contraction of the emissions of the rich world on board so that we can converge with the increasing emissions of the poorer world. If we don't tackle climate change, we won't meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

We must include transport, not just aviation, in the Emissions Trading Scheme and work to include the progressive states of the US in our endeavours. But we must not include nuclear energy within that scheme or any of the others foreseen under Kyoto.

Nuclear energy still has a poisonous legacy in its radioactive waste: we still do not have effective solutions to that problem. We are currently trying to contain nuclear proliferation (half-heartedly it would seem from the recent UN conference) and are in fractious negotiations with Iran. How can we offer nuclear power as a solution when we do not trust those who would use it? Recent reports of the arrests of suspected terrorists in Australia cite their interest in that country's nuclear power plant. Do we seriously want to increase the number of potential terrorist targets?

Nuclear power is still expensive: the deal to build Finland's new power station is effectively funded as a loss-leader, not a realistic economic proposition. There is a strong argument to be developing more decentralised forms of delivery, especially in developing countries and rural areas. Also, where are we to site these new power stations as putting them by the coast or on river banks hardly makes sense if the predictions for rising water levels materialise?

We need to remove our subsidies to fossil fuels. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and government export credit agencies need to do the same. We also need to confront the positive treatment given to nuclear energy over the years and the vast amount of money spent on it.

Instead, we need to invest in technologies which do not threaten the planet and which contribute to meeting the MDGs. We have 21 renewable technologies. Combined with energy efficiency and demand reduction measures, we could cut our emissions, produce more jobs and not increase global instability.

• UK Green MEP Jean Lambert is vice-chairwoman of the group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

The undesirable aspects of nuclear power can and must be tamed by R&D investment, says Jerzy Buzek

Judged by its greenhouse effects, renewable energy is the safest source. But with extreme effort, by 2020 renewable energy could cover 25% of the EU's energy use. What is left are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. From the European point of view the use of oil and gas is inconvenient. Europe has to import them and will never be completely independent in that aspect. Therefore, access to those fuels constitutes a political problem of great importance. Because of this, the EU cannot stop using brown and hard coal as a source of energy, primarily electric, in the near future.

Introducing a grand programme of clean coal technologies is an absolute necessity. The US, Australia or China already have such programmes. Our energy safety and climate changes require such a step. Technological innovations and their introduction is the best way to curb climate change.

Nuclear energy is definitely a good answer to climate change. But it carries other dangers, with which we can, I hope, deal soon. The main problem is the safe operation of nuclear power plants and waste management. We cannot cease to act in this direction. The 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7) must therefore contain the instruments to enable the EU to meet those great challenges which await us.

The nuclear energy research area for FP7 was defined in two documents approved by the European Commission on 21 September. According to these documents, the nuclear energy activities will be organised within two specific programmes of the 7th Euratom Framework Programme and Joint Research Centre (JRC) nuclear energy research and training activities.

The Euratom Specific Programmes cover two areas: fusion energy research, and nuclear fission and radiation protection. The fusion energy research is focused on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) which is an international project for the creation of prototype reactors for electricity-producing fusion power plants. The activities in this area should develop the knowledge base for ITER. They should also include the completion of ITER itself and research and development (R&D) in advance of its operation. A strong accent will be put on R&D activities for the longer term, human resources, education and training, infrastructure. ITER will be constructed in Cadarache in France. ITER projects consist of preparing the site, establishing the organisation, management and staffing, providing general technical and administrative support, constructing equipment and installations.

The specific programme on nuclear fission and radiation protection focuses on promotion of safe use and exploitation of nuclear fission and use of radiation in industry and medicine. It includes management of radioactive waste, reactor systems, radiation protection, support and access for research infrastructure and human resources and training including mobility. The main objective of the programme is to create a scientific and technical basis for geological disposal, partitioning and transmutation of spent fuel and radioactive wastes, to ensure the safe operation of existing installations and the safe use of radiation in medicine and industry.

The main objective of the JRC nuclear research is to develop knowledge, provide scientific and technical data and support for safety, security and reliability, sustainability and control of nuclear energy, including aspects related to innovative and future systems. The JRC research activities cover nuclear waste management, environmental impact and basic knowledge, nuclear safety and nuclear security.

The budget for the Euratom Specific Programmes for 2007-11 foresees EUR 2,159 million for fusion energy research and EUR 394m for nuclear fission and radiation protection. The expected budget for JRC nuclear research for the same period is EUR 539m. This constitutes a substantial increase in funding. It should guarantee adequate finance and progress in research and innovation in the field of nuclear energy.

• Polish centre-right MEP Jerzy Buzek is a member of the Parliament's committee on industry, research and energy.

Two MEPs express their opinions on climate change. Nuclear power is a false economy for the planet and a boon for terrorists and rogue states, says UK Green MEP Jean Lambert, who is vice-chairwoman of the group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The undesirable aspects of nuclear power can and must be tamed by R&D investment, says Polish centre-right MEP Jerzy Buzek is a member of the Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

Article is part of a European Voice Special Report: 'Climate Change (COP11 and MOP1 Conference)'.