That article is, to say the least, rather simplistic. There are a number of different Severn Barrage options, some of which (while not generating so much electricity) don't affect the various zones of ecological significance.

And of course if we were to eventually have to obey their call for more nuclear power, we might not need a Severn Barrage at all, and then it would be a shame if cute animals had died just to make our government appear politically brave.

If it advocates nuclear power it lacks credibility.

Based not on numerical scenarios, but on principle. I think George Monbiot's articles have an alternative view, where he did some sums and found that he would have to make some compromises. To be honest, the only reliable answer is to go back in time and cudgel a lot of people about the head.

But my principle is that nuclear power is an unsolution: that is, it's being put forward as a *response* by politicians so they look like they're doing something, but it doesn't actually *solve* the problems in question. We have an energy system that takes in non-renewable resources (that are currently peaking) and throws out harmful waste products. Why invest in another form of generation that does the same?

Plus, nuclear stations have a load of embedded energy and will take too long to get going. I've heard people argue that we have only a finite amount of practically accessible energy available from fossil fuels, so we should use this now as an investment to create the new energy infrastructure - because if we wait too long there won't be enough energy left to make the changes required.

cavalorn recently pointed out to me that the UK spends considerably more money on mobile phone ringtones than on fusion research.

Yep £350 million on ringtones, £100 million on fusion. Perhaps science should try the fundable method of fundraising, or something similar. After all, we got £140,000 just for atheist bus ads. What if all that disposable income were channeled into "Science!"?

If anyone wants to invest some time in listening to people who actually know what they're talking about, I've been maintaining the website for a local lecture series on climate change:
www.hiye.org.uk/climatechange

Having read the original article, I'd say that it's a piece written with a particular goal and a particular tone (a rather irritating trying-for-attitude one). As you would with a piece advocating opposite views, I recommend taking nothing at face value and checking both facts and logic of anything you're interested in.

For instance, part of an argument for forgetting about food miles is that apples from New Zealand are grown in farms that use renewable electricity. Surely the conclusion there is not that shipping food halfway round the world is good but that British farms should use more renewable energy.

Anyway, I wasn't planning on preaching so let's give Steve his blog back. ;)

Hmmm. Can't they compromise? What a about a power station fuelled by swans? Then there would be an incentive for the power companies keeping Beck's Swans as species around as a natural resource.