Representation by Martin Wilks
- Date submitted
- 27 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
What I have not liked about this series of enquiries is the way in which EDF have set the agenda. And, in appearing to be generously listening to the complaints about it: wildlife, ecological impacts, road congestion, pollution etc, we almost lose sight of how the question of nuclear power yes or no in principle seems to have no place at the inquiry table? EDF argue - prominently - that enabling NUKES for us is their contribution towards a zero carbon future? So when do we have a discussion about their contribution to a nuclear toxic East Coast. They’ve not sorted out the long term (many 100’s years) policing maintenance and security of the stockpiled Sizewell B consequence …. And now we’re contemplating them doubling up that hazard into the future? It may not come home to roost for this generation of stakeholders - but the children of the 7’th generation? (As the Lakota Indians would say in considering the long term effects of their pow-wow decisions) But whatever, it’s good to separate this out - are you for/against Sizewell C in principle? And then, are you complaining about how they are planning to do it? Trouble is, for those against it in principle - they can hardly be bothered fussing with the “how they are planning to do it bit”, - they just don’t want it to happen. Having been ‘against’ in principle ever since I started to think deeply about such things - I thought it time to re-evaluate. We all know, (don’t we?) how automatically self-affirming our beliefs can become. But into the re-evaluation process I’ll add two fresh ideas: One is the Precautionary principle (Wingspread statement 1998) - in a nutshell, “Practice precaution in the face of uncertainty” - with the burden of evidential proof placed upon the proposer of a questionable development. How can EDF ‘prove’ that highly toxic radioactive waste will obediently remain safe for many hundreds of years? The second is the proposed The law of Ecocide - Ecocide is the serious loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems, and includes climate and cultural damage. The Earth Protector initiative supports a campaign to criminalise ecocide and create legal protection for the planetary system (in the same way as human rights got it’s teeth with genocide becoming established as a crime in international law) My Woodbridge Town Council has just signed up as an Earth Protector Community - I live in an earth protector community. Uranium fuel, whilst not fossil fuel, is clearly not a sustainable fuel supply - nor is it ethically sourced. Post-colonial plundering of developing nations, pitiful miners wages with no employment rights. War mongering war lords fighting for the rights to uranium rich territory. We need to put investment into locally sourced, clean energy - and encourage the research that helps us do that.