Wales needs a green future, not Nigel Farage's coalmine fantasy
In south Wales on Monday, the leader of Reform UK offered a Farage mirage of reopened coalmines and blast furnaces (Nigel Farage's pitch for Welsh elections: bring back coalmining, 9 June). When questioned, he did not acknowledge the practical absurdity of such restorations; he responded with the conman's alibi – they are 'ambitions' and 'nothing is impossible'.
Welsh knowledge of the destruction of industries is tragic, profound and recent. By pretending that past can be reversed with just 'a change of mindset', Farage is showing contempt for the experience and intelligence of the people of Wales.
Like all communities that have endured rapid and massive economic change without proper preparation or compensation, they need the realism and security of a productive green future, not the cynical dishonesty of a Trump tribute act.Neil KinnockLabour, House of Lords
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Scotsman
23 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Nigel Farage is a threat to the Union, warns Kemi Badenoch
The UK Tory leader hit out at Reform during a speech at the Scottish party conference in Edinburgh Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Nigel Farage is a threat to the Union and his party will "let the SNP in", UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has warned. Mrs Badenoch told the Scottish Tory conference in Edinburgh that Mr Farage "would be fine with the SNP winning another five years in power". She said the Scottish people deserved better than the Nationalists. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hitting out at Reform – which claimed on Friday to now have 11,000 members in Scotland – she said the union between Scotland and England is 'just not that important' to Mr Farage's party. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch | PA "We know that when it really matters, like on gender or free speech or taxes, Labour will fold and vote with the SNP," she told party members. "And as for Reform, the Union is just not that important to them. "In April this year, Nigel Farage said he would be fine with the SNP winning another five years in power. "He's fine with another five years of higher bills, longer waiting lists, declining school standards, gender madness, and ultimately, independence. Reform will vote to let the SNP in, Conservatives will only ever vote to get the Nationalists out." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Farage previously told The Times he was 'not that worried about the SNP', adding: 'Yes, they're going to have a resurgence. Scotland is not going to leave the United Kingdom. It's not going to happen in a month of Sundays. We're not doing a deal with Labour.' Mrs Badenoch's speech came just over a week after a Holyrood by-election in which the Tories came fourth, well behind Reform in third. Meanwhile, an opinion poll has suggested Mr Farage's party could come second in next May's Holyrood election. The Tories have also suffered a string of defections, with more than a dozen councillors switching to Reform. Speaking to journalists, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'fine' with defections if they removed those who are not real Conservatives. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Reform are not a centre-right party,' she said. 'This is a party that is talking about nationalising oil and gas. This is a party that wants to increase benefits at a time when the benefits bill is so high. 'So if Nigel Farage is taking out of the Conservative Party the people who are not Conservatives, then I'm quite fine with that.' Asked if she considered Mr Farage an active threat to the Union, she said: "If he wants the SNP to have another five years, then that is a threat to the Union, so yes. 'He doesn't seem to care about the Union. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's a fundamental belief, as I said in our speech." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Elsewhere, she revealed she keeps in touch with Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay via WhatsApp. 'It's like a joint support group,' joked Mr Findlay. Mrs Badenoch added: 'Your words, not mine.' In her first speech to a Scottish Tory conference as the UK leader, Mrs Badenoch said the SNP 'remains obsessed with breaking up our country' at the expense of issues such as education and health. She accused the Nationalists of wasting millions of pounds on 'independence propaganda' and failed ferry projects, while introducing new hate crime laws and pursuing controversial gender reforms. Mrs Badenoch added: 'So, we need to bring about their electoral defeat. Because the Scottish people deserve better.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said Mr Findlay 'stands out at Holyrood because he's not part of the cosy left-wing consensus of the SNP and Labour'. In her speech, Mrs Badenoch accepted the Tories in power at Westminster 'didn't always get things right'. But she insisted her election, coupled with Mr Findlay taking over the Scottish party last year, meant they are 'under new leadership'. Adding that she is 'renewing this party', she declared: 'This speech isn't about looking back. It's about the future. Our future.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Part of that 'positive vision of the future' includes 'standing up' for the North Sea oil and gas industry, she said. Mrs Badenoch claimed that by increasing the energy profits levy – also known as the windfall tax – Labour is 'killing the oil and gas industry'. She said: 'Frankly if it is allowed to remain in place until 2030, as is Labour's current plan, there will be no industry left to tax. 'Thousands will have been made unemployed and all the while we import more gas from overseas – from the very same basin in which we are banned from drilling.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She called on the UK Government to remove the energy profits levy, and said the Tories would also 'scrap the ban on new licences' for oil and gas developments. 'We will champion our own industry,' Mrs Badenoch told supporters. 'We will let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come and making Scotland richer in the process.' She also pledged the Tories will spend more on defence, saying this is crucial as 'our world becomes even more dangerous'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Citing conflict in the Middle East as well as in Ukraine, Mrs Badenoch said it 'becomes even harder to understand why Labour didn't use the spending review this week to set out a clear plan to get to 3 per cent on defence spending'. The Tories, she insisted, will 'stand by Scotland's defence industry to build the security equipment and systems that keep us safe'. Earlier, Mr Findlay told the BBC it would be a 'complete act of national self-harm' not to continue drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. He said Scotland should use its own oil, rather than relying on foreign imports.
