However, I think he’s very wrong about nuclear power, mainly because of the geopolitical issues. It isn’t simply a question of the UK going nuclear, it is about a massive worldwide uptake in the use of nuclear fuels. This has huge global security implications: having 10 times as much uranium passing around the world is an open invitation for nihilist groups such as Al Qaeda.

There is also the matter of where do we get this uranium from. You already read of horror stories about the polluting effects of uranium mining in developing countries and Australia isn’t going to be able to meet global demand. A global spike in uranium costs would mean that every tin pot dictator with access to the stuff is liable to be able to enrich themselves. I’m simply not convinced that exchanging a black gold rush for a yellow gold rush will make the planet any more secure.

Finally, there is the issue of technological solutions always being the best answer to everything. This is certainly part of the New Labour mindset, which is why Road Pricing and Carbon Credits are so much on the agenda. But technological solutions often only replicate low tech solutions in a way that seems to have little environmental benefit but massive civil liberty implications. You could, for example, simply pass on the cost of carbon onto the consumer via tax and business carbon trading, yet carbon credits are the fashion because they don’t ’seem’ to be the same thing and just so happen to provide the government with a wealth of data about our spending habits. They also tend to be 10-20 years away when what we need is action right now.

So yes, technology is good, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the wood for the trees.