Reacting to comments by Gordon Brown in his speech to the Labour conference, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"If the Climate Change Commission adopts a target of 80 per cent emissions cuts next month, as Brown is now demanding, that will represent a significant defeat for John Hutton. The Business Secretary wants to give the green light to a new unabated coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth as soon as possible, but a new tighter target could snooker him because coal is by far the most polluting fuel. We hope this means Hutton is losing the argument in Cabinet."

He continued:

"If Gordon Brown really wants to end the dictatorship of oil he should invest in rail instead of aviation and demand that car manufacturers make more efficient vehicles. If he really wants to create a million green collar jobs and slash emissions by 80 per cent he should make huge investments in renewables and energy efficiency and build the kind of new super-efficient power stations that are being rolled out across Scandinavia. We've had a decade of rhetoric from Labour on climate change, now it's time for action."

Greenpeace press office - 0207 865 8255

Reacting to Gordon Brown's comments that the UK needs to increase its nuclear power capacity, Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said:

"This looks like nothing more than a clumsy attempt by Brown to talk up British Energy's share price. The nuclear industry has had a woeful 24 hours that must be shaking confidence in this outdated technology.

"Sizewell B shut down unexpectedly, clean-up costs are soaring and the reactor that France want to sell us has had construction halted for safety reasons.

"And, unless Brown is about to appoint an alchemist to the cabinet, nuclear power will do nothing to address any concerns over oil."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

Reacting to Gordon Brown's speech today launching the government's new national security strategy, Greenpeace campaigner Louise Edge said:

"It's obviously good news that Brown seems to be adopting a joined up approach to the real security issues facing the UK public.

"But he simply can't square his commitment to freeing the world from nuclear weapons with last year's decision to renew Trident.

"And he's living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks building more nuclear power stations around the world will do anything other than increase the risk of more countries getting hold of the keys to build their own nuclear weapons."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

Reacting to the announcement this morning by John Hutton that the government intends to encourage the construction of new nuclear power stations, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"This is bad news for Britain's energy security and bad news for our efforts to beat climate change. Nuclear power can only deliver a four percent cut in emissions some time after 2025, and that's too little too late at too high a price. We need energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like those in Scandinavia. That's the way to defeat climate change and ensure energy security."

He continued:

"Going for nuclear power allows politicians like Gordon Brown to project the impression that they're taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems, but in reality it's nothing of the sort. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher pledged to build a nuclear power station every year for a decade. Even the iron lady only managed to build one and it was over budget and late. Brown won't fair any better. In the meantime there is a very grave risk that genuine solutions to climate change could be strangled of investment just as they are taking off."

DEFRA today announced a desire to bury nuclear waste under the ground - so-called ‘geological disposal'. The only mooted region for such a site is Cumbria. But the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, the Government's expert advisers on dealing with nuclear waste, ruled out the possibility of burying nuclear waste under the sea in 2006. They came to this conclusion because of the huge environmental risks it posed, the huge problems it could cause to future generations and because it could breach international law. (See CoRWM final report 'Managing radioactive waste safely' July 2006 pp. 69-70). Professor David Smythe, who served on the Geological Review Panel of British Nuclear Fuels and worked with Nirex, the government's former nuclear waste disposal body, said last year that the geology of the Cumbrian coast made it an unsuitable place to put waste in the long term. He described any plan to store waste there as ‘crazy' and cited findings from a previous inquiry into the site 10 years ago, showing it might be prone to flooding or other disturbances. (See Financial Times November 2nd 2007).

The nuclear white paper published today says: "Our policy is that before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted the government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of the waste they will produce."

Commenting on the government's waste plans John Sauven added:

"The government's nuclear policy looks like a dog's breakfast. Ministers are proposing to store highly radioactive waste in the ground and say new stations won't be given permission to be built until they've worked out how and where to bury it, but the only area so far mooted is Cumbria which the government's own advisors have already ruled out on safety grounds. You have to wonder what on earth is going on in Whitehall."

Greenpeace expects the government and the nuclear industry to make many fallacious claims today. Here we provide you with a helpful guide to exploding nuclear myths:

Myth 1
Nuclear can slash UK emissions

Even if Britain built ten new reactors, nuclear power can only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the Government admits this (Sustainable Development Commission figure). It's too little too late at too high a price.

Myth 2
We need nuclear to ensure we are not dependent on Russia and the Middle East

Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place. Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant. A tiny proportion of the gas we import is from Russia.

Myth 3
There is no alternative to nuclear

The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia. Together they have the potential to deliver reliable low carbon energy quicker and cheaper. They are also safer and globally applicable, unlike nuclear. But these technologies will be strangled if cash and political energy get thrust at nuclear power.

Indeed, Gordon Brown very recently committed the UK to generating around 40% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and his case for nuclear evaporates. At the moment Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power installed as the UK and has given up on nuclear.

Myth 4
Brown is being decisive and strong.

Not strong... just wrong. Margaret Thatcher promised 10 new reactors when she was in power. Just one was built. Going for nuclear allows politicians to project the impression that they are taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems. In reality going for nuclear simply will not solve our energy problems. Other low carbon technologies will.

Myth 5
This second consultation was fair

Not so. In fact the process was, once again, deeply flawed. The Market Research Standards Council is now actively considering a Greenpeace complaint against the company employed to run the consultation. If, as we expect, the complaint is upheld, this second consultation will be viewed like the last one - fatally flawed.

Greenpeace wrote to the Government before Christmas telling them that in our view it would be unlawful to give new nuclear the green light. This was because:

- The consultation was again flawed and in some respects seriously misleading.

- The government had made up its mind to support new nuclear long before it started its consultation.

- There is no solution to deal with nuclear waste. Without a solution it would be irrational and immoral to give the green light to creating more of it.

Our lawyers are looking at today's statement and will advise on its legal meaning. However, we already know that giving the green light to new build is a bad decision. The public consultation was deliberately misleading, there is still no solution to dealing with nuclear waste, and taking the nuclear option now will strangle the real solutions to climate change and energy security.

A full briefing detailing the lie at the heart of government policy is <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-case-against-nuclear-power">here</a>.

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.