Nuclear is not the answer to the climate crisis

Contrary to the article by James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley (Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, 3 December), many scientists around the world remain sceptical that nuclear is the answer, or even part of the answer, to climate change. The academic authors have a fine record in identifying the causes and consequences of climate change, but their proposed solution simply doesn’t make sense.

The main problem is that, contrary what many think, nuclear power is a poor method of reducing carbon emissions: its uranium ore and fuel processes have heavy carbon footprints. Indeed, of the ways to reduce carbon emissions in the energy sphere, nuclear is by far the most expensive in terms of pound per tonne of carbon saved.

Renewables, especially wind and solar, are now less expensive, quicker to install, and much safer: with them one does not have to worry about the spectres ofChernobyl and Fukushima.

But perhaps most important of all is the moral dimension. Given the technical and political obstacles to dangerous spent nuclear fuel, should we be passing these problems to future generations? What about the Irish Sea, still the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world due to Sellafield’s discharges? What about the sheep farms in north Wales still subject to food controls due to radioactive contamination from Chernobyl almost 30 years ago?

The climate change negotiators in Paris should think hard before recommending nuclear as a solution. It isn’t.
Dr Paul Dorfman 
Dr Ian Fairlie 
Dr David Lowry 
Jonathon Porritt

• In his speech to COP in Paris, Prince Charles said “We must save our forests” and “There is no plan B to tackle climate change without them.” I agree our forests are vital; but there is a plan B that would save them – and mitigate climate change. It would also greatly reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty.

To save tropical forests we first have to reduce the pressures from tropical agriculture. This involves simple and inexpensive biological approaches to rehabilitate degraded farm land and improve crop yields from the current 10-15% of their biological potential. Then we need to plant local, highly favoured, traditionally important food trees to reduce hunger and malnutrition – species like safou, marula, shea, eru, baobab, and hundreds of others producing tasty, nutritious and marketable fruits, nuts and edible leaves. This diversification also restores ecological health and, importantly, generates income from the sale of their products in local markets. The final step is to set up new cottage industries to process and add value to these products, creating business and job opportunities to further improve household livelihoods.