Jon Bright (London, OK): You might have seen that Greenpeace decided to make an official complaint to the Market Research Standards Council over Opinion Leader Research's conduct of the government's recent nuclear energy consultation last month. The consultation was supposed to build public consensus around options for the UK's future energy sources, and was initiated after a previous consultation had been ruled "misleading" earlier this year (thanks to an earlier Greenpeace challenge). But, as Paul Dorfman argues on these pages, the current consultation might be as misleading as the previous one; and Greenpeace have now turned in an even lengthier document to the MRSC detailing the exact nature of their complaint.
The complaint is interesting reading. For example, have a look at this set of questions and statements, which people taking part in the consultation were asked to rate their level of agreement with:
- Tackling climate change is a critical challenge for the UK
- Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to reducing the UK's CO2 emissions
- Ensuring a secure and reliable supply of energy is a critical challenge for the UK
- Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to providing the UK with secure and reliable energy supplies in the future
- How concerned are you about safety and security issues associated with nuclear power?
- How concerned are you about the creation of new nuclear waste?
- How satisfied are you with the Government's proposal to manage new nuclear waste in the same way as existing waste?
- How satisfied are you with the measures in place to minimise the safety and security risks associated with nuclear power?
To which Greenpeace respond:
Greenpeace notes that positive messages for nuclear are made as statements of fact (‘Nuclear power stations could make an important contribution to reducing the UK's CO2 emissions') while negative issues for nuclear power required answers by degree, with the loaded term ‘satisfied' included in the question (‘How satisfied are you with the Government's proposal to manage new nuclear waste in the same way as existing waste?')
With consultations like this, the devil really seems to be in the detail. How can a group of non-experts really make an informed decision about the future energy needs of this country - especially when powerful lobby groups will fight protracted legal battles over the wording? The only solution seems to be, as I've often seen suggested, to have consultations run by a body independent of government influence. But I'm not sure where that would leave nuclear power...
