Examination of Witnesses (Questions 105-119)
PROFESSOR JAMES
LOVELOCK
22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q105 Chairman: Good afternoon,
Professor Lovelock. May I welcome you to this public evidence
session of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster.
At present we are conducting an inquiry into "Meeting Scotland's
Future Energy Needs", as you know. You have kindly provided
us with a written statement. Before we start our detailed questioning,
is there anything you wish to say to augment that statement or
to add to your written remarks?
Professor Lovelock:
Thank you for inviting me. I do not have anything to add to the
written statement I sent.
Q106 John Robertson: Professor,
you have been a leading environmentalist for 30 years and yet
in your statement you say that you would recommend that "every
effort be made to start nuclear new build and coal burning power
stations that sequester the emitted carbon dioxide". What
has made you come to this view?
Professor Lovelock: It is a view
I have held for the last 25 years, at least. It is on record in
a book I wrote in 1985[1].
Q107 John Robertson: Do
you not find this a contradiction from being an environmentalist
to supporting coal in particular and nuclear?
Professor Lovelock: No, I do not.
I am a scientist primarily. There is nothing wrong with getting
energy from coal, as long as you do not let the carbon dioxide
get into the air. There are sensible and economic ways of removing
carbon dioxide from the furnace gas at the power station. The
biggest problem is sequestering it, knowing where to put it, but
there are all sorts of suggestions. I do think that it would be
wrong for Scotland, which has considerable resources of coal left,
not to use that power source.
Q108 Mr Weir: You say
in your submission that, not only have the dangers of nuclear
energy been much exaggerated but so have the problems of nuclear
waste. Given that nuclear waste is a real issue surrounding nuclear
power, what, in your view, is the most effective way of managing
nuclear waste?
Professor Lovelock: I think we
should follow the example of the Finns who have suggested—in
fact they are doing it—burying it deep in the granite. There
is a lot of granite in Finland and there is lots of it in Scotland.
The natural radioactivity of the granite is quite high. The Finns
reckon that it will not be many hundred years before the waste
has fallen to the same level of radioactivity as the granite.
Q109 Mr Weir: Do you accept
there will be considerable public opposition to anywhere a nuclear
waste depository was proposed?
Professor Lovelock: I would wholly
agree with you that the perception of the dangers of nuclear are
so widespread that any suggestion like that or that I make will
be resisted. Yes, I agree.
Q110 Mr Weir: Do you accept
the industry view, which seems to be that any nuclear waste has
to be very carefully put in lead lining, mixed with cement, and
stored away for very many years?
Professor Lovelock: No. I think
that is almost a nonsense that has grown up over the years. This
problem of disposing of nuclear waste has almost become an industry
of its own. It is a tiny amount is the total that is being produced
in this country, not only in Scotland but in Great Britain. It
is something that would fill a small detached house and that is
over 40 years. It is not a major problem. But the amount of carbon
dioxide that is produced, now there is a real waste. A year's
amount would make a mountain of solid carbon dioxide two miles
high and 12 miles around its circumference. That is a gigantic
problem to dispose of, but that is never mentioned. We only hear
about this tiny, small quantity of nuclear waste.
Q111 Mr Weir: You mentioned
that the nuclear waste would fill a small house. When we visited
Dounreay we saw a great deal going into crushing; low level, intermediate
level waste being put into steel drums with cement and laying
it out. When we visited the United States we heard about the problem
of trying to get a project going at Yucca Mountain. Are you talking
about high level waste?
Professor Lovelock: I was talking
about high level waste. I do not consider the low level waste
any problem at all. It is radiation at levels similar to those
in Cornwall, for example, and near Aberdeen in Scotland, too.
Q112 Mr Weir: You would
not accept the industry view that it has to be dealt with in that
way?
Professor Lovelock: The industry
has no choice. I think the law says that radiation above certain
levels must be treated in a certain way and that is it.
Q113 Mr Carmichael: Looking
at the first part of Michael Weir's question, and you have dealt
with the question of nuclear waste, he spoke also about the dangers
of nuclear energy being exaggerated. I think he pulled that from
your comments. What is your assessment of these dangers? We all
think of the worst nuclear incident in our living memory, Chernobyl.
What is your assessment of something like that?
Professor Lovelock: The United
Nations sent a World Health Organization team to Chernobyl in
2001 or 2002. The information is all on their website. They found,
after exhaustive investigations involving a large number of doctors,
a total of 45 deaths that had occurred at Chernobyl. Yet repeatedly
the BBC and most of the newspapers talk of numbers in anything
up from 30,000 to one million, and this is just nonsense. It is
true that the radiation distributed over a large area may shorten
the lives of people to some extent, but we might be talking of
shortening of lives by perhaps 16 hours or a couple of days. I
think this is almost insignificant on a lifespan. The figures
have been manipulated by the anti-nuclear people to make the worst
possible case. That was understandable in the Cold War. We were
all frightened of nuclear events. CND and other organisations
did a good job in frightening people, but unfortunately the fear
has hung over and is now a real problem in dealing with our energy
needs.
Q114 Mr Carmichael: Your
evidence to the Committee is that there are only 45 deaths attributable
to Chernobyl?
Professor Lovelock: Quoting the
United Nations statistics, yes.
Q115 Mr Carmichael: Are
you familiar with the Chernobyl project by the Swiss agency for
development and co-operation?
Professor Lovelock: No, I am not
Q116 Mr Carmichael: If
I told you that their figures, which were based on government
agencies in the three former Soviet republics themselves, estimated
that something in the region of 25,000 of the 800,000 people had
so far died as a result of their exposure to radiation, you would
discount their figures?
Professor Lovelock: I do not know
the quality of their evidence. I have a great respect for WHO,
a very great respect. In fact, I spent part of my life in the
Medical Research Council and worked closely with them, but I do
not know about the others.
Q117 Mr Carmichael: You
would stick to the assertion that the total number of deaths attributable
to Chernobyl is 45?
Professor Lovelock: Yes, so far.
Q118 Mr MacDougall: From
what you are saying, I presume the message you are giving is that
your own particular view is that there should be further investigation
into the re-prioritisation of our heating energy needs. The observation
so far is that we could exclude very easily the dramatic from
the reality, what is perceived as opposed to what really happens
on the ground. You have highlighted your thoughts on Chernobyl,
which we talked about, and other ways in which industries have
lost lives and caused damage to the environment. There is diversity
in industry. I have witnessed that in my own area of Central Fife
where we produce gas from coal. That is probably ahead of its
time. Is your main point therefore, Professor, that there should
be a closer, more detailed and wider examination of the re-prioritisation
of how we meet our energy needs?
Professor Lovelock: Indeed it
is. I think that the DTI Energy White Paper was badly unbalanced.
Principally it was unbalanced by making our nations utterly dependent
for 80% of energy on imported gas. In a world that is likely to
be changing fast as a result of climate change, it would be madness
to rely on so insecure a source of supply, but, much more than
that, gas is probably the most dangerous greenhouse fuel of the
whole lot. It is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse
gas. You only need a leak of 2% for it to be just the same as
burning coal; a 4% leak makes it something like three times more
dangerous than burning coal for a period of 60 years. I am told
that the leak rate from the North Sea is 6% from the gas wells
and the Russian leak rates range between 5 and 15%. It is an exceedingly
dangerous fuel to use and there may be a world ban on the use
of gas, which would leave us in a terrible mess.
Q119 John Robertson: Professor,
I have been fortunate in that I have been to Finland and I have
seen what they have done with the waste there. They won the argument
not just politically but with the people of Finland about what
they should do with the waste. How do you think our Government
could allay the fears of the public here in relation to nuclear
waste?
Professor Lovelock: I think it
would be quite a difficult job but advertising in any form succeeds;
we buy the products. If you tell people long enough the same message,
they begin to believe in it, I am afraid. It is a terribly undemocratic
thing to say but it seems to be a fact. We have been hearing the
other message from bodies like the green lobbies that seem to
have had an awful lot of money to spend to say their piece for
a long time.
1 Note by witness: "The Ages of Gaia"
published by Oxford University Press in the UK and by WW Norton
in the USA. Publication date 1988. The writing was over a three
year period. Back
| 
