The environment as a policy probleminternational and domestic obstacles encountered by the German govern-
ment in trying to agree a decommissioning programme illustrates the con-
tinuing strength of the pro-nuclear advocacy coalition (see Box7. 8). The
longer the nuclear industry in each country can delay the implementation
of a serious closure programme, the more chance it has that new exogenous
factors may swing the argument back in its favour. Ironically, the threat of
global warming has provided a boost for the industry because many coun-
tries will be unable to meet their carbon emissions reduction commitments
if they close their nuclear plants. Given the small size of the renewable
energy sector in most countries, one short-term cost of closing nuclear reac-
tors is almost certain to be an increased dependence on electricity generated
byfossil fuels. Consequently, most countries have delayed further closures of
reactors by upgrading existing nuclear stock, improving capacity and length-
ening their expected lifespan.
There is also growing evidence of renewed support for nuclear power
among Western policy elites. The EU Energy Commissioner, Loyola de
Palacio, stated that nuclear power could help ensure the stability of energy
prices and supply: ‘Five years ago no one was talking about it, but now [the
debateaboutnuclearenergy]isonthetable...therearenotmanyalterna-
tives’ (Financial Times,10August 2004). In short, EU carbon emission reduc-
tion targets may only be met by building new nuclear reactors to replace
declining stock. Western European governments provided financial support
forthe construction of two new nuclear power-stations in the Ukraine to
replace the Chernobyl plant. The Finnish parliament approved the construc-
tion of a fifth reactor in 2002. The French government has chosen a site
in Normandy where the prototype of a new generation of European pres-
surised water reactors will be built, ready to replace the ageing French stock
from about 2015. A review of UK energy policy published in 2006 concluded
that new nuclear power-stations would be a significant source of low carbon
electricity generation (DTI 2006 :17), effectively backing the Prime Minis-
ter,TonyBlair, who had already declared his support for the construction
of more nuclear reactors. Following a series of power cuts in California,
President Bush championed the new Energy Policy Act 2005, which specifi-
cally promotes the construction of new nuclear plants. The federal govern-
ment will provide significant financial aid to encourage developers to take
advantage of a new, more relaxed permit regime designed to make it eas-
ier for companies to win construction and operating licences. So the future
of the nuclear industry remains in the balance: whilst there is growing
pro-nuclear sentiment among policy elites in many countries, most Western
European governments, let alone the wider public, have still to be convinced
by the safety, economic and political arguments for renewed nuclear
expansion.
What does the nuclear case study tell us about the potential for rad-
ical policy change? The reversal of the commitment to nuclear expansion