ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
undoubtedly represents a radical policy change; in Hall’s taxonomy, it resem-
bles third-order change. Nevertheless, the pro-nuclear paradigm has not yet
been replaced by a new, alternative paradigm, such as a commitment to
asustainable energy policy. Significantly, although frequently defined as a
postmaterial issue, the radical change in nuclear policy has been driven pri-
marily by twomaterialistarguments: the risk it poses to human safety and
thecollapse of the economic case for nuclear power. Moreover, there has
been no process of social learning in which policy elites have questioned the
sustainability of the core assumptions underpinning energy policy. Drawing
on Sabatier, the changes have affected thepolicy corebeliefs within one sub-
system, resulting in expectations about the contribution of nuclear energy
tooverall energy production to be scaled down – although in recent years
the need tocut carbon emissions has prompted renewed interest in the
nuclear option. Crucially, thedeep corebeliefs about the wider role of energy
production and consumption in the economy remain largely intact. In a con-
sumerist society in which energy conservation remains a low priority and
where profit-seeking energy utilities encourage increased energy consump-
tion, it is not surprising that few countries have made any serious attempt
todevelop an alternative energy strategy, and the door remains ajar for the
return of nuclear power (see Chapter 12 ).Critical question 5
Will climate change save the nuclear industry?◗ Conclusion
This chapter has identified a major problem: why has the traditional
paradigm proved so resilient, despite its patent inadequacy in dealing
with the complex challenges thrown up by contemporary environmental
problems? Familiar concepts in political science – interests, ideas, institu-
tions and power – and the relationship between them have been used to
explain this resilience.
It has been argued that the traditional paradigm is underpinned by the
structural power of producer interests, the segmentation of the policy pro-
cess and the belief systems of policy elites. Policymakers are informed by a
technocentric commitment to economic expansion, which encourages them
todefine the interests of the state as largely synonymous with those of
producers and, therefore, to ‘recognise some social interests as more legit-
imate than others and privilege some lines of policy over others’ (Hall
1993 : 292). More often than not, the interests of producer groups trump
those of environmental groups, and economic growth takes priority over
environmental protection. The expansionist paradigm and the institutional
structure of government are mutually reinforcing: organisational structures,
administrative procedures and policy networks are designed to implement