No nukes is good nukes

So John Hutton reckons that nuclear power is the new North Sea oil, does he? There is so much wrong with this it is difficult to know where to start. Let's take a leaf out of the minister's book, though, shall we, and ignore the huge questions such as over where we will keep the nuclear waste that will blight future generations - not that I think this is a trivial question - and concentrate on the economic side of things. Because, don't forget, in this post-Thatcherite caring New Labour world, it's making money wot counts more than anything...

So building a new generation of nuclear power stations could be a "$20 billion bonanza" for UK companies and up to 100 000 new employees, according to the Guardian's account of the minister's speech. Very nice, but why does it have to be nuclear? Why not stimulate the growth of renewable technologies instead? Nuclear technology is hugely expensive, and creates by-products that draw together surprising bedfellows in fear: not just the hand-knitted yoghurt sandal-wearers of Hebden Bridge, but the rare steak chomping right-wing Americans in the Bush administration. At least that's one of the reasons they put forward for wanting to stop Iran's civilian nuclear programme, because it could lead to a millitary programme.

Renewable technology is also at this stage still expensive: a solar hot water installation for our house would cost in the region of £5000, which is a bigger investment than we can make. But, even allowing for the fact that British governments seem woefully ill-equipped for negotiating with the private sector, a government-backed programme that guaranteed large orders would surely bring prices down. Before the libertarians get all angry about such big-state projects, consider the incremental closure of analogue TV. Like Andy at Spicy Cauldron pointed out a while ago (can't find the exact link, sorry), the government has effectively insisted that you pay a considerable sum to replace perfectly-working technology in order to continue watching TV. Never mind all the embodied energy in the old, useless sets, or the resources used to make compatible sets, what about the power to keep these new sets on? But I digress - this is a first-draft stream of consciousness back of fag packet post - the point is that the libertarians have kept quiet on this one, but you can bet they would be up in arms if we all had to pay £400 towards a solar heating/electric set-up for our roofs, regardless of the climate benefit. Like I have argued before, there could be all sorts of interests hiding behind a libertarian mask.

Yet the government reckons £20 billion would be invested in these new power stations. Bear in mind, though, that some estimates reckon £70 billion is needed to deal with the existing nuclear waste in this country. Even if those are US billions, that's over £1000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Even with the number of single-member households we have, with economies of scale, you could subsidise a solar system for everyone for that kind of money. Announce the plans, and watch as companies strive to develop technology and reap the rewards, creating jobs in the process. No, I don't know how many, but I wouldn't be surprised to find 100 000 on the back of a fag packet in John Hutton's speech-writer's waste bin, either. Plus we would have the moral satisfaction of not becoming world leaders in an industry that causes the proliferation of deadly waste products. Which reminds me, once we have become world leaders, who will we sell this nuclear know-how to? Iran?

I admit this post is all over the place, hardly rigourous, but, unlike some of the connected industries, this doesn't seem like rocket science to me. And we haven't even touched on the notion of peak uranium yet...

Congratulations, you're a woman

So, it's international women's day, eh? Happy women's day, then, whatever gender label you prefer. Like fireworks at New Year, women's day appears to be a notion I first saw celebrated in Russia, then trickling into public consciousness over here. I always found it a dubious notion in Russia - social pressures demanded that women work all day in whatever profession, and then come back and single-handedly support the domestic front while the man of the family sat on the sofa waiting for his dinner to be cooked.

The October Revolution ushered in change in many spheres, but the Bolsheviks paid little attention to gender roles: getting women into the workplace was almost entirely driven by notions of the class struggle, not gender relations. But for this to work, the state had to supply creches, laundries, canteens, and in the few cases where these actually appeared rather than just being promised, guess who formed the overwhelming majority of workers within them? There's even a film "Усатый Нянь" (The Whiskered Nanny) that highlights the fact. But, never mind, here's one day out of 365 when for five minutes you'll get a bunch of flowers or box of chocs by way of thanks.

Mind you, have attitudes changed that much in the UK? It's probably safe to say that economic pressures rather than ideology have been responsible for increasing the numbers of women at work in the UK, although there is a discussion to be had over the role of feminist rhetoric. And there's not even one day when women are celebrated. Tellingly, the closest we get is Mother's Day - what does that say about our preconceptions of a woman's role? And even then, well, the way in which parenthood is undervalued in Western society is a topic I will return to.

Airports - stabbed or shot?

Bretwalda Von Higham-Pseudonym is asking the question which airports are best. He cites Changi and KL as good ones, and from personal experience rates Moscow's Domodedevo highly while excoriating Sheremetevo. Can't quibble with any of that: I was one of the first into Changi's new Terminal 3 earlier in the year and, in the hope of burnishing my thinking blogger's award that must be a bit tarnished by three months of silence, have to praise the enormous plate-glass window against which the urinals stand in the gents. Years ago I came across the expression "an outback breakfast", which for some reason came back to me then.

But really there's no joy in flying at all, these days. I was 15 the first time I got on a plane, and I can still remember the excitement. For many years I could tell you instantly how many times I had been on a plane. I had bought into the fantasy of the champagne glasses and cigars of some 1930s golden age hook, line and sinker. I've done two trips already this year, and frankly just now I think you'd have to pay me to get on a plane again. Shuffling round in long lines in your stockinged feet with one hand holding your kecks up because your belt will set off the metal detector and the other hand clutching that ridiculous plastic bag with your squeeze of toothpaste in - when there was clearly no substance to the liquid bomb plot anyway - just to perpetuate some illusion that there is some sort of war on, what a farce. It's worth reproducing the final three paragraphs of that Register article:

It's a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire "red mercury," and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs.

For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.

You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.

Russia still has a hot war within its territory, and some Chechen factions are not shy of terrorist tactics, but the Russians take a measured approach - they can manage to scan a laptop within its case, for example. They provide seats , at least in Domodedovo, for you to remove your shoes more easily, and even little plastic galosh things to keep your socks clean. Western airports could learn from that. The last time I went through Schiphol, as I think I've said before, it was like entering Bexhill-on-Sea, with the guards shouting and hurrying you along. And of course if anyone was to stop and question all of this, well, you can just hear the smack of the latex glove being pulled on, can't you? Plus they probably wouldn't let you fly...

Of course, maybe this is their way of discouraging aviation for the sake of the climate - a taxi from my house to the airport costs the same as a one way flight from that airport to Moscow, via Zurich, before taxes. That is surely an insane way of putting a price on resources, and cannot be in any way sustainable. Although naturally a politician looking at a four to five year re-election cycle has no interest in the long-term, which is why I daresay we'll be getting even more Heathrow. If I didn't have close relatives across continents, wild horses wouldn't get me on board an aircraft again; as things stand, the three day trip from here to Krasnodar on the train is looking tempting even with the attention span of a four-year-old to contend with. But not for a while.

Spot the Difference

This man is perceived to be at risk due to his role with British armed forces becoming widely known. He is brought to safety in the UK in a matter of hours.

This man, and others like him, are known to be at risk due to their role with British armed forces becoming known to a particular section of society. Despite some fine words being eventually forced out of the government, they are - almost unbelievably - still in danger months after. 

As ever, the estimable Dan Hardie has more details, and a plea for action.