Running from 1st – 4th August 2013, the Green Gathering returns to its lovely site near Chepstow for another year in the landscaped grounds of Piercefield Park bordered by the mighty river Wye. With the imposing ruin of Piercefield House as a backdrop and stunning views of the Severn bridges and estuary, some have said it is the most beautiful festival site in the country.

At the Green Gathering, you can rediscover ancient skills in our Crafts area and explore pathways to future sustainability with Permaculture and Transition. Talk with key speakers from the Green movement and engage in lively debate at the Green Forum venue; inform yourselves about current issues and causes with groups in the Campaigns area.

And of course, there is a lot of fun to be had! Follow this link to enjoy Seize the Day playing ‘Big Love’ at the 2011 Gathering, come and join us for happy summer days under an open sky.

The Green Gathering has always provided a excellent Kids’ area and we are one of the very few events to offer free entry to the under 11’s. Many families get their first taste of a greener lifestyle with us – one of the joys of organising the Green Gathering is seeing children running around with new friends in open fields!

Renewable Energy

As pioneers of solar powered stages, their entertainment is run entirely on renewable energy. They provide many small venues rather than loud, dominating arena stages. Ambient festival cafés host many acclaimed bands and musicians, and if you’re in the right place at the right time…… The occasional unscheduled performance by one of the mystery guests!

Four days of festival can be tiring, so they provide plenty of tranquil relaxation space as well. Visit the Healing area for a massage or for expertise in alternative therapies; discover faerie grottos, ancient wisdoms and divinations with the Earth Energies area and Avalon Rising. Or even drive out with ease from the hard-standing car park to explore the local area, famous for its natural beauty.

The long history of the event its roots go back to the early nineteen eighties, gives the Green Gathering a key role in networking among groups involved with sustainability. Representatives from many diverse projects come here to reconnect, exchange news and meet new people. Need some specific advice from experts? Or just a general introduction to off grid living in between having fun? Here’s where you should come!

A touch of old school magic, just the way a festival should be… was one of the many positive comments from attendees at the 2012 event. No corporate sponsorship logos obscuring the sunsets, no pressure to consume, lots of welcoming covered spaces to relax and chat to friends old and new….why not arrange to meet up with your Facebook contacts?

The Green Gathering as a whole has always been deeply committed to education for a sustainable and resilient lifestyle, and they are now proud to announce the forming of a charity to carry this work forward all year round. Any profits from this event will go to support this project. Join up as a member to follow its progress!

Advance ticket sales help them to plan ahead – so look out for special offers, especially if you are coming with a group. The price for a single adult ticket will rise as we get closer to the event, so buy now.

http://www.greengathering.org.uk/#tickets/shop.php

The Railway PH at the bottom of Station Hill.

ALL WELCOME (Especially new members!)

AGENDA:

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Apologies for Absence
3. Minutes and matters arising
4. Officers’ reports
5. Councillor feedback – Kathy
6. Campaigns update – Fracking / 20’s Plenty – Andy / Gareth
7. People’s Assembly Against Austerity – June 22nd – Andy
8. New website proposals – Adam
9. Membership issues – John
10. AOB
11. DoNM

NOTE – Venue is 1 minute’s walk from both the Bus and Train stations in Bridgend.

REMINDER – If anyone needs a lift to any of our meetings, let Andy know and we will organise it for you.

WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH WALES REALISE WHAT THEY THEY ARE SUPPORTING IN BLINDLY VOTING FOR THE LABOUR PARTY?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/workfare-why-did-so-many-labour-mps-accept-this-brutal-unforgivable-attack-on-vulnerable-people-8542193.html

“What a disgraceful, grubby chapter in the history of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Usually when a Tory Government is in power, giving working people and the poorest in society a kicking, any critical voices of the Labour leadership are savaged for aiding and abetting the enemy. It’s the Tories we should be opposing, or so the line goes. But what happens when the Labour leadership actively rides to the rescue of the Tories, blatantly and overtly helping them as they attack some of the poorest in society while riding roughshod over British law?”

“Not that all Labour MPs disposed of their backbones at their parliamentary selection meetings. 40 Labour MPs took the revolutionary course of voting against a Tory government. Among them were the diminished group of working-class Labour MPs: Ian Lavery, a former miners’ leader; Ian Mearns, a former British Gas worker; Graham Morris, the son of a miner; Steve Rotherham, an ex-bricklayer; John McDonnell, the son of a bus driver; David Crausby, a former turner; ex-miners like David Anderson and Dennis Skinner. Here are MPs who remember what the Labour Party was founded to do: to give working people a voice, not least when they come under attack from a Tory government.”

This second paragraph sums up the dilemma that many decent, honourable socialists find themselves in here in South Wales,

They have been born and bred into the Labour Party and refuse to accept that, since Tory [sic] Blair’s New labour project, the Party has changed irrevocably.

As an ecosocialist, I have regular friendly discussions with like minded friends in the Labour Party who acknowledge that the Party is not the one they joined in their youth. They argue, not entirely unreasonably, that they would rather use the Labour Party ticket to get into positions of influence – councillors, AMs, MPs – than join a party that better reflected their true beliefs – the Green Party – but which, they perceive, cannot deliver them these positions of power and influence.

I understand this line of argument, but wonder how they manage to sleep at night as the ever growing list of betrayals to their core beliefs and their constituents builds and builds on a daily basis.

I can only see two long term outcomes.

Either the socialist rump in the Labour Party continue to use the blind loyalty of the South Wales electorate as their meal ticket, until the day the public of South Wales have their epiphany and realise who really is determined to look after their interests; or these marooned socialists take the initiative and declare what they know – that the Labour Party can no longer be trusted to fight for the social justice that they once stood for. In doing so they ought to recognise that the home of modern, progressive socialism – ecosocialism – is no longer beneath a red flag, but a green one.

Http://www.thegreenleft.org/

Capitalism Creates Poverty

A blog for the promotion of social, environmental and economic justice – by Howard Thorpe

Saturday, 12 November 2011

So, have we screwed up Planet Earth?

The simple answer is no, the Earth will be around for a long time after we have perished, but it is beginning to look like we may have screwed up the planet as far as humans are concerned. The latest data from the International Energy Authority paints a disturbing picture. It seems that we are in danger of passing the point where we can prevent a global temperature rise of 2oC and damaging climate change, because we are continuing to build fossil fuel power stations, and that we have only five years left to do something about it.

We are always being told that capitalism can do great things and that the market can solve all our problems. But it is clear that the market is responsible for this particular problem. Its not just the demand for energy that is at the root of climate change but the fact that the energy companies are completely wedded to fossil fuel extraction. We could have gone down the renewable energy route years ago, putting ourselves in a much better position now. But what was the energy companies response to a shortage of easy to extract fossil fuels? Go for the harder and much more environmentally damaging fossil fuels like tar sands oil and shale gas from fracking. With capitalism the desire for profit obviously outweighs the desire to prevent irreversible climate change – here is a quote from Oil and Energy Investor:

Shale is no longer “the future” of natural gas… It’s now… And fracking is paying-off in high profits for those who know how to take advantage of it. The reason is simple: Old natural gas wells around the globe are running dry, replaced by new shale wells.

So now we know. It should come as no surprise, because capitalists put profit before people and the environment. But the energy companies are not just behind our addiction to fossil fuels, they are just as keen to discredit alternatives to fossil fuels, and the very idea of climate change itself. In the UK, Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the front man for something called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an energy company funded organisation which is dedicated to casting doubt on man made climate change, activities which were exposed in this article in the Independent. Lawson often speaks out about climate change and was apparently responsible for changing the policy of the Daily Mail against climate change.

On my desk I have a copy of a book called ‘Natural Capitalism‘, which was published in 1996. In this book the authors, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L Hunter Lovins, show how, using resource efficiency, we can create more goods using less materials, and much less energy, and recycle the outputs on closed loops that mimic how nature works. The authors have provided us with a solution to climate change and resource depletion. Any company which uses these methods is bound to be much more efficient and competitive than its rivals. But this hasn’t happened, certainly not on any kind of scale that will help the planet. The reason why is that capitalism, far from being dynamic and innovative, is inherently conservative. People stick with what they know works, and what they know is profitable, and they also often have large amounts of capital tied up in plant and machinery which is simply out-of-date. I’ve posted about this problem before here.

Natural Capitalism in action

So what is the answer? Its simple. Governments bailed out the banks. Now they must make changes happen to prevent climate change. The move to renewables must go ahead and the energy companies must be made to make that change. If they won’t do it they must be nationalised. The solar energy Feed in Tariff (FIT) must be maintained at a reasonable level instead of being cut in half as this government is doing. We also have to make companies use resource efficient methods, both through incentives and regulation. We need a Green New Deal to insulate all our homes and create thousands of jobs. The market has failed us, and will continue to fail us. Its time that democratically elected governments remembered what they are their for – to represent the interests of the people and the common good – not to bow down to the market.

BUDGET 2013: Time for ‘Plan G’: stop failed austerity and invest in the billion-pound green economy

20 March 2013

RESPONDING to the Budget announcement, Green MP Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) said: Amidst the tax breaks for shale gas and boastful roadbuilding pledges, there is one huge green economy-shaped hole in this flailing Chancellors Budget.

With the UKs green economy now worth over £120bn 9% of GDP providing nearly a million jobs and generating a third of our most recent economic growth according to the CBI, it is completely inexplicable that George Osborne keeps pretending it doesnt exist.

Given the huge potential of green industries and clean energy generation to provide British jobs and prosperity, as well as the obvious environmental benefits they will deliver, its time to drop austerity and go for Plan G.

Theres no doubt that the cuts have failed now we need urgent investment in nationwide green infrastructure to stabilise the economy, tackle the environmental crisis and deliver clean and secure energy for the future.

Tax breaks for shale gas a costly gamble

Lucas continued: This should also mean the Chancellor ditching his irrational obsession with gas. Its outrageous that the Government is willing to gift yet more tax breaks to companies drilling for hard-to-reach shale a costly gamble that risks keeping the UK addicted to polluting fossil fuels at precisely the time we should be leaving them in the ground.

A Government which really cared about bringing energy bills under control and improving energy security would put its money on renewables where the costs are predictable and falling and agree to recycle carbon tax revenue into a jobs-rich energy efficiency programme, rather than deepening our dependence on gas, where prices are set to keep rising.

Going all-out for offshore wind, for example, instead would save £20bn by 2030, create 70,000 more jobs, and lead to both lower climate emissions and lower fuel bills.

And with the new nuclear facility at Hinkley announced yesterday expected to come with a £14bn price tag, this Government should urgently think again before ploughing ahead with its deeply misguided nuclear strategy. For the cost of one nuclear reactor, its estimated that 7 million households could be lifted out of fuel poverty.

With the negotiations for a strike price for nuclear operators getting on for double the current price of electricity to be paid by households and businesses already struggling with high bills its clear that the main beneficiaries of this policy will be EDF and the French state.

Corporations get tax cuts as millions struggle with rising household bills

With the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warning that tax rises, welfare cuts, and wages freezes will push over 7 million children below the breadline in the next two years, its scandalous that this millionaire Government is still so reluctant to make the richest in our society pay their fair share of tax.

While millions across the country struggle to pay rising household bills, the Government is cutting tax for corporations like Amazon, Starbucks and Google when they choose to pay it at all to 25% next month, 23% by 2014 then 20% the year after.

The General Anti Avoidance Rule announced today will not be enough to stop the tax dodgers, as the tax QCs Graham Aaronson who worked it up has admitted it will be “narrowly focused”, and apply only to the “most egregious tax avoidance schemes”.

If the Government was really serious about cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, including shutting down tax havens, it would have supported my Private Members Bill requiring all companies to publish what they earn.

It would also seek a strong international agreement to force all multinationals to report their tax practices transparently. HMRC has a duty to prosecute multinational companies who do not pay their taxes in the UK and its right that offenders are publicly named and shamed.

An appallingly glib comment from the reporter about fracking not having been proven to be unsafe yet!

Otherwise, the usual hacking around of what we said was not too bad.

Good exposure for the Frack-Free Wales website and the demo outside the Senedd in on April 16th.

https://www.facebook.com/events/436918206390670/

“Following the announcement that the UK Government is planning to push ahead with Fracking/Coal Bed Methane Extraction in Wales and the UK despite the obvious and well-documented risks, we are holding a peaceful protest outside the Senedd to highlight the dangers posed by fracking to the general public and the environment.

At the end of the action we will hand a letter and a report written outlining our concerns to First Minister Carwyn Jones. If you cannot attend and would like to sign the letter please post to that effect on the event wall.

Please share this event widely and invite anyone you feel is as concerned as we are.”

http://frackfreewales.wordpress.com/

My hearty thanks for her tremendous work on advancing this campaign to Frances Jenkins – founder of Frack-Free Wales.

Frances is also working hard on an anti-fracking music event for late spring or early summer – watch this space!

“But I also want Britain to tap into new sources of low cost energy like shale gas. So I am introducing a generous new tax regime, including a shale gas field allowance, to promote early investment. And by the summer, new planning guidance will be available alongside specific proposals to allow local communities to benefit. Shale gas is part of the future. And we will make it happen.”

Where to start!! The sheer stubborn stupidity of the man is staggering.

“Low cost energy like shale gas” – who on earth is he trying to kid?

If renewables received similar tax breaks and subsidies as those dished out to the fossil fuel industries and nuclear, the need for these dangerous and expensive technologies would soon disappear. Even as things stand, renewables will beat shale gas to lower power prices in the UK, according to an analysis from bank Citigroup and other moe credible sources than the Oil & Gas industries.
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=198321&title=Renewables+%27beating+shale+gas+in+price+drop+race%27

We could and should be following the example of countries like Germany. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012. In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germanys renewable energies sector. According to official figures, some 370,000 people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2010, especially in small and medium sized companies. This is well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500). Germany has been called “the world’s first major renewable energy economy”. In 2011 20.5% of Germany’s electricity supply was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.

And what about Denmark? It is already the world leader in wind power, getting a fifth of its power from wind turbines. They are committed to “an historical effort to become even better at saving energy and create an even more competitive and energy-effective company culture in Denmark, also for households,” Minister for Climate, Energy and Building Martin Lidegaard has said. The portion of Denmark’s electricity from renewables would rise to 52 percent by 2020 under their plan.
The Danish government’s proposals call for coal-fired power plants and oil-fired heating to be phased out by 2030. Lidegaard explained that they see the plan to phase out fossil fuels amounting to buying an insurance policy “against the risk of the market in the next 10 years.The conclusion being it has a cost to make a green transformation, but it also has a cost not to do it,” Lidegaard said. “I think this will work out to be the best insurance Denmark has ever (bought).”
Under the plan, 100 percent of Denmark’s power and heat would come from renewable energy by 2035, the ministry said. By 2050, the entire energy supply — electricity, heat, industry and transportation — would come from renewables, according to the proposal. The initiatives would cut Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020 based on 1990 levels.
Lidegaard said that Denmark faced three global crises which will hit it “with a force that is so far absolutely unheard of” — an economic and financial crisis, a climate crisis and a resources crisis. “This proposal will address all three crises.”
The push for renewable energy would position Denmark as a leader in developing climate-friendly technology, he said.

WOULDN’T IT BE REFRESHING TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH LIDEGAARD’S VISION AND COMMONSENSE IN OUR GOVERNMENT?

“Generous new tax regime” – for all the wrong people doing all the wrong things!

Public subsidies for the development of wind power in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels, a new Guardian analysis has revealed. Financial support for fledgling renewable energy industries has increasingly come under attack in recent months, but the new data shows that the older industries benefit to a far greater extent. Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from just £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels

The boss of a company set to build two nuclear reactors in Somerset has been demanding cuts to renewable energy subsidies and to help for people in fuel poverty while quietly lobbying the European Commission for financial help for new nuclear power stations. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nuclear-boss-wants-to-cut-family-fuel-aid-8537553.html . The coalition promised no subsidies fro nuclear power, but the following forms of support for the nuclear industry have been recorded in
Hansard as answers by the UK government to parliamentary questions in June 2010 http://www.mng.org.UK/gh/private/nuclear_subsidies1.PDF :

• £11 million on research expenditure to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in 2010
• £10.2 million for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s (EPSRC) current nuclear research portfolio since 2008-09 on eight projects directly relevant to long term nuclear waste management and facility decommissioning.
• £3.553 million for the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) for nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management research
• £180,000 For the Environment Agency for grant in aid on regulatory research relevant to nuclear waste and decommissioning in 2009-10
• £0.95 million annual subscription to the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) & the NEA’s Data Bank, which contains technical information from other NEA members.
• £5 million provided by the NDA in 2007-08 million to support the establishment of Energus (formerly referred to as The Nuclear Academy) as a centre of excellence for skills, training and business support.
• US$ 9.3 million and 16.4 million respectively to the United Nations Atomic watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 2010, With a similar sum, but allowing for inflation, exchange rate differences, and the likely outcome of current ongoing budget negotiations among member states and the agency, has been set aside for 2011.
• 116.95 million and US$ 84.42 million paid by UK to the IAEA over the past 10 years.
• £3 million DECCs Office for Nuclear Development, total budget for 2010-11. This does not include the cost of DECC’s wider work on policy associated with nuclear security, safety and non-proliferation.

“New planning guidance” – this is likely to mean that the largest projects could have the option to apply for the go-ahead through a central Government process rather than via local authorities. They thereby hope to bypass any possibility of grassroots local groups of concerned residents (like the Vale Says NO! and Frack-Free Wales) having any real say over the decimation of their futures. As Neil Sinden, The Campaign to Protect Rural England’s director of policy, said today: “We will make sure communities are not sidelined in the decision-making process.” We will take to the streets and ensure our voices are heard and the frackers are held to account every step of the way!

As for “Allow local communities to benefit” – perhaps Osborne would like to explain how they will benefit from:

• Loss of property/house value
• Loss of jobs in existing sectors like tourism and agriculture
• Adverse impacts on local agriculture, such as loss of land and loss of organic status
• Huge amounts of HGV traffic negotiating their lanes
• Influx of very short-term migrant workers
• Air pollution from pressure release of frack jobs, fugitive emissions of shale gas, diesel fumes from trucks and heavy machinery
• Noise from drilling, trucks and machinery
• Sending every single one of us, local communities everywhere, over the precipice of calamitous climate change, at the behest of greedy capitalist, corporate frackers .

These are amongst the certain impacts everywhere the frackers pitch up. On top of this is the absolute lottery of when and where things will go wrong. Not if, but when and where there will be:

• Contamination of aquifers
• Surface spillages of chemicals and heavily polluted ‘produced’ water
• Serious health issues such as endocrine disruption – causing hormone imbalances, cancers, birth defects and developmental problems in children (http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php)
• Increased seismic activity

Finally, the sheer arrogance of “we will make it happen” – quite simply, not if I have anything to do with it, George!. Me and whose army? The ever growing legions of fractivists around the country, indeed around the globe, who will not stand by and watch the rape of the countryside and the destruction of our futures.

THERE IS A STAGGERING AMOUNT OF THIS GOING ON IN BRIDGEND

Green MP Caroline Lucas in the Huffington Post today:

The Labour ‘Opposition’ may be backing the Government, but some MPs are outraged by its desperate bid to change the law to avoid pay-outs after the Poundland ruling.

Anyone who has ever lost a case in court may well have wished that they had the power to change the law to avoid having to deal with the consequences. Unlike individuals, who are expected to respect the rule of law, the UK government does have that power – and this administration is all too ready to use it.

Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government on its controversial welfare-to-work scheme, under which more than 230,000 jobseekers had been forced into work placements at below minimum wage levels and with scant information about what was happening and why. It now faces a huge bill of £130m in benefit rebates to all those who had their welfare payments docked.

One of those caught up in this shambolic forced labour programme – condemned by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee as “extremely poor” – was Cait Reilly, a science graduate who successfully took the Government to court after being made to work without a salary in a Poundland store.

In my own constituency, I’ve seen the real-life impact of this flawed initiative. A 58-year-old constituent with secretarial skills, unemployed for seven months, was told she had to travel miles to work in a charity shop or lose her benefits. Unable to afford the travel costs, she found a job in a similar shop closer to home, but the Job Centre would not allow it.

Now, instead of respecting the British justice system and accepting the fundamental principle that workers should be paid the minimum wage, ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions are trying to push a retroactive law through Parliament that will overturn the ruling and prevent people from claiming what they are owed.

As one of a group of MPs to push this shameful legislation to a vote on Tuesday so that Members would have the opportunity to register opposition to the Bill, I was hugely disappointed when the official ‘Opposition’ refused to join us.

In fact, the Labour front bench’s opposition to these proposals has amounted to nothing more than seeking very minor ‘concessions’ that completely fail to address the core principles at stake. A meek call for a review of the regulations in a year’s time is frankly no ‘Opposition’ at all.

By failing to vote against this Bill, Labour is effectively supporting the Government and indicating that it, like David Cameron’s administration, sees no problem in bringing in emergency legislation to overturn a court’s findings when it goes against them.

In a fair society, the solution to unemployment is not to force people into workfare programmes which do little more than supply big companies with free labour. It’s to create jobs that pay a living wage, for example, by investing in new sustainable infrastructure projects and boosting the jobs-rich low carbon economy.

Tuesday’s vote was about sending a signal to all of those people being hit by this Government’s cuts and thinly-veiled attacks on the poor that there is an effective Opposition in this Parliament willing to stand up for these principles – even if Labour won’t.

Follow Caroline Lucas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarolineLucas

Labour is happy to promote the economically extortionate, environmentally insane option of nuclear power.
£14 Billion on a 30 years of baseload only electricity.
If renewables received such investment and subsidy we could forget nuclear and extreme fossil fuels like fracked gas FOREVER!

New Hinkley Point C will be built by the French company EDF. It is a mere 15 miles from Cardiff and 25 miles from Bridgend – in a straight line – half way between Weston-Super-Mare and Minehead (about 100 mins away by car over the French owned Severn Bridge!!)

Pick out the pitfalls, myths and deceits in these MP press statements:

Mar 19, 2013 3:05 PM
By Theo Usherwood and Elizabeth Barrett, Press Association Political Staff

Labour today welcomed the Government’s decision to give the go-ahead for the first of a planned new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.
[Lib Dem] Energy Secretary Ed Davey said the proposed 3,260 megawatt nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset would be built by French company EDF.
The decision also means EDF will be allowed to build rail and road networks to support the power station, as well as issue compulsory purchase orders on land needed for the project.
The news is a boost to the nuclear industry following a series of setbacks in plans to construct a new generation of reactors in the UK, which ministers say are needed to cut carbon and keep the lights on.
Shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint said she welcomed the decision.
She said: “Today’s announcement is an important milestone in the development of new nuclear build in the UK. There is no doubt about that.
“On behalf of the Opposition, I am pleased to welcome it and reiterate our support for nuclear power alongside an expansion of renewable energy and investment in carbon capture and storage as part of a clean, secure and affordable energy supply for the future.”
In his statement to the House of Commons, Mr Davey said the project would play an important role in ensuring a diverse supply of energy in the UK.
He said: “Affordable new nuclear will play a critical role and secure a diverse electricity supply for Britain and make a significant contribution to the transition to the low-carbon economy needed to tackle climate change.
“Therefore, this decision on planning aspects on the first new nuclear power station in a generation represents an important milestone in that process to decarbonise our electricity supply and economy.”

Mr Davey said the project would create a workforce of up to 5,600 during construction, and contract opportunities in the supply chain.
There would also be a new by-pass road as well as a community package to compensate to people living in the area, he said.
Mr Davey told MPs: “I also recognise that as these works are carried out, those who live in the area may have their daily lives disrupted one way or another.
“This disruption is in my view outweighed in the final analysis by the benefits the project will bring – chief among these is the very significant contribution it will make to the achievement of energy and climate change policy objectives.”
The new plant’s two nuclear reactors would be capable of producing 7% of the UK’s electricity, enough to power five million homes, EDF has said. It is thought the costs of the new power station would run to around £14 billion.
A final investment decision by EDF to go ahead with construction still depends on the deal being negotiated with the Government on the “strike” price paid for electricity generated by the plant.
Under electricity market reforms, low-carbon power such as nuclear reactors and offshore wind farms will have long-term contracts with a guaranteed price for their electricity, to give investors certainty to invest in projects with high capital costs.
Mr Davey said discussions on the strike price were ongoing, but he expected them to be concluded shortly.

Conservative Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) declared it a “very good day for Britain” and a “phenomenally good day” for his constituency.
The decision, he said, meant the UK could “kick-start the civil nuclear programme”.
He said: “The innovation, the jobs and the input that we’re getting from across the industry is staggering.”
Mr Davey responded: “He is right that there will be some pain for some local members of the community during what will be a long construction phase, but I hope they and he feels that the recommendations of the panel and the decisions I’ve taken in addition to those will try to mitigate that as much as possible.”
Labour’s Paul Flynn (Newport West) raised concerns about the long-term costs to taxpayers of the project.
He said: “Does the minister agree with himself as the Lib Dem spokesman when he said that nuclear power is only possible with a vast – his word – taxpayer subsidy or a rigged market?
“Does he agree with himself as a supporter of the Coalition Agreement that said there would be no subsidy on nuclear power?
“Can he now deny the claims that the strike price, originally £50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), is now being negotiated at £97 and the view that what we will be doing is giving a subsidy in the short term of £30 billion to a near-bankrupt French company that could turn out to be £150 billion in 35 years?”
Mr Davey said his concerns on nuclear power had related to price, acknowledging that the history of nuclear power showed it “has turned out to be expensive”.
He said: “That’s why this coalition Government and indeed the previous Labour government have gone about this third-generation nuclear power station in a very different way from the past, to make sure that the consumer, business and taxpayer are protected.”
The figures quoted, he added, “I just simply do not recognise.”
Mfl
Page 4
Tory former defence secretary Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) said: “I congratulate the Government in finally getting the civil nuclear programme moving after too long a period of paralysis in this country, it is vital for our energy security and our low carbon generation.”
But he raised the issue of transmission from Hinkley through 450 kV cables, as opposed to the current 132, saying it would require electricity pylons more than twice the height of current ones.
He said: “Where is the overall green gain if we get green generation but the transmission results in a blight on our environment in some of prettiest parts of the country?”
Mr Davey replied he previously undertook to look into this issue during a meeting with Dr Fox.
Lib Dem Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) also raised the issue of costs and asked for confirmation that the planning decision did not actually represent a decision to go ahead with Hinkley C.
He said: “In which respect it pales into insignificance beside the strike price negotiation, which if he’ll accept my figures as hypothetical, but if the maths add up, at £97 megawatt-hour (MWh) for 35 years, would guarantee an uncompetitive French nationalised energy company nearly £90 billion over time from British bill payers.”
Mr Davey said the decision today was purely about planning, but he said he did not recognise the figures.
Former Tory DECC minister Charles Hendry (Wealden) said: “Can I say how delighted I am that the Secretary of State as a Liberal Democrat has now consented more new nuclear capacity than any minister I think since Tony Benn.”
He paid tribute to officials in helping to bring a “nuclear renaissance in the UK one big step closer”.
Green MP Dr Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) warned of the potential repercussions on energy prices.
She said: “There are much faster, cheaper, more affordable ways of tackling climate change than nuclear.”
She added: “The only two nuclear power stations under construction in Europe today are billions of pounds over budget and delayed by an ever increasing number of years.
“Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark are all rejecting new nuclear, even France is aiming to reduce its reliance by 25%.
“What do all of these countries know that we don’t and why is he locking consumers in the UK into artificially high energy prices for years to come to the benefit of the French government and not to the UK taxpayer?”
Mr Davey said when it came to tackling climate change the country needed “every form of low carbon generation possible”, adding: “The risk is so great, the challenge is so great, I think it is wrong for people who are worried about climate change to turn their back on this issue.”
Around the world he argued there were many countries who were looking again at new nuclear.
He said: “That is why we in our approach to these negotiations and our whole approach to the new nuclear programme are being extremely careful, learning the lessons of the past, learning the lessons from other countries so we do not repeat those mistakes.”