Japan’s crisis and the anti-nuclear backlash

Germany and Switzerland suspend plans to build new power stations. Will others follow?

The nuclear crisis in Japan continues to get worse. After an explosion at reactor 2 at the Fukushima power station and a fire (now extinguished) at reactor 4, radiation from the plant has reached harmful levels. Everyone within 30 kilometres of the danger zone has been told to stay indoors, and a no-fly zone has been imposed around the power station.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, has warned: "Radiation has spread from these reactors and the reading of the level seems high . . . There's still a very high risk of further radioactive material coming out." The plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co, reported dose rates of up to 400 millisieverts per hour – eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year.

But as several scientists have reminded us this morning, this is not another Chernobyl. The four damaged reactors at the Fukushima plant were shut down automatically when the earthquake was detected. In Chernobyl, by contrast, the reactor exploded while operating at full temperature, with the result that far greater levels of radioactive material were released.

Despite this, the Fukushima accident has already prompted a rethink in several European countries not renowned for their large earthquakes. In Germany, Angela Merkel, who reversed the popular SPD-Green pledge to phase out nuclear energy by 2022, has announced a "three-month moratorium" on plans to renew 17 power stations. In other words, the Japanese catastrophe has provided Merkel with the political cover necessary to drop an extraordinarily unpopular policy (88 per cent of the public want all plants closed).

Germany isn't alone. Switzerland, another country not known for its high levels of seismic activity, has suspended the approvals process for three new nuclear power stations.

In Italy, where large earthquakes are more common, plans to introduce nuclear energy by 2013 are now in doubt. But it's notable that the US, where eight plants are located on the earthquake-prone West Coast, has offered a robust defence of nuclear power. Yet as the New York Times noted: "most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, ageing plants and back-up electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances."

Given the uncertain outcome of events in Japan, other countries, including Britain, are suspending judgement. The twin challenges of energy security and climate change have bolstered the case for nuclear power in recent years. The long-term consequences of any decision to change course deserve serious consideration.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Can Philip Hammond save the Conservatives from public anger at their DUP deal?

The Chancellor has the wriggle room to get close to the DUP's spending increase – but emotion matters more than facts in politics.

The magic money tree exists, and it is growing in Northern Ireland. That’s the attack line that Labour will throw at Theresa May in the wake of her £1bn deal with the DUP to keep her party in office.

It’s worth noting that while £1bn is a big deal in terms of Northern Ireland’s budget – just a touch under £10bn in 2016/17 – as far as the total expenditure of the British government goes, it’s peanuts.

The British government spent £778bn last year – we’re talking about spending an amount of money in Northern Ireland over the course of two years that the NHS loses in pen theft over the course of one in England. To match the increase in relative terms, you’d be looking at a £35bn increase in spending.

But, of course, political arguments are about gut instinct rather than actual numbers. The perception that the streets of Antrim are being paved by gold while the public realm in England, Scotland and Wales falls into disrepair is a real danger to the Conservatives.

But the good news for them is that last year Philip Hammond tweaked his targets to give himself greater headroom in case of a Brexit shock. Now the Tories have experienced a shock of a different kind – a Corbyn shock. That shock was partly due to the Labour leader’s good campaign and May’s bad campaign, but it was also powered by anger at cuts to schools and anger among NHS workers at Jeremy Hunt’s stewardship of the NHS. Conservative MPs have already made it clear to May that the party must not go to the country again while defending cuts to school spending.

Hammond can get to slightly under that £35bn and still stick to his targets. That will mean that the DUP still get to rave about their higher-than-average increase, while avoiding another election in which cuts to schools are front-and-centre. But whether that deprives Labour of their “cuts for you, but not for them” attack line is another question entirely. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496