Idealism vs Reality: Rethinking the Green Party’s Anti-Nuclear policy

The United Kingdom has shifted away from the traditional two-party system with new contenders in the race to Number Ten as a result of dissatisfaction with thirteen years of Tory inadequacy and the subsequent Labour Government's incompetence. This has resulted in many turning to the Green Party thanks to the leadership of Zack Polanski, whose charismatic and down-to-earth demeanor has earned him much popularity. However, is the Greens' policy ambition for an anti-nuclear Britain a threat to our strategic and energy security? I believe so. Here’s why.

The Greens, as their name suggests, aim to transition Britain to greener and more sustainable energy, which is admirable. However, there are valid reservations about the cost of transitioning to the extent the Greens want in a short timeframe (wind to provide around 70% of the UK’s electricity by 2030), as the UK is only responsible for less than one percent of global CO₂ emissions whilst countries such as China are responsible for a whopping 32.1% (Green Party, 2024; IEA, 2024). This is not an excuse to become idle on the climate crisis, but it does raise the question of why we should bear an excessive financial burden on certain green policies for very little global impact. That being said, I am a huge advocate for nuclear power, a reliable, clean and cost-effective power source that I believe to be the future of energy and in line with the Greens' carbon-neutral goals. Strangely, the Greens seem to be heavily against nuclear power claiming it to be “unsafe” and produces “unmanageable quantities of radioactive waste” a fact which is misleading (Green Party, 2024). There have been huge stigmas surrounding nuclear energy and its dangerous potential, with many linking it to disasters such as Chernobyl and the Fukushima nuclear power plants. These stigmas are unfair:  Chernobyl was according to the IAEA “seen to have been... the result of the absence of a safety culture... to the operating staff, the designers, the regulators and the organizations responsible", whilst Fukushima was hit by one of the largest tsunamis recorded in history (IAEA, 1992; World Nuclear Association, 2024). Nuclear waste also continues to remain a primary concern. Nuclear waste is stored in small, safe containers which have been tested against armor-piercing missiles and remained uncompromised (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2013). Furthermore, it is estimated that the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy (McBride et al., 1978).

As well as the Greens' stance on phasing out nuclear energy they also wish to abolish the UK's nuclear deterrent system, Trident. I believe this would be hugely irresponsible and a significant mistake for the UK's national security. To be clear, nuclear war would result in complete global catastrophe, and it is inconceivable that anyone would advocate for it and it is this line of thought the Green Party follows. However, the UK's nuclear deterrent is the sole reason for the UK's relevance on the global stage. How will adversaries such as Russia and China take our needs seriously without the protection of this nuclear shield? How can we push for peace in foreign conflicts such as between Ukraine and Russia and Palestine and Israel (conflicts involving nuclear powers) without such a deterrent? The UK’s shrinking armed forces, driven partially by budget cuts, appear feeble compared to the scale of both Russia and China’s militaries, with only 181,890 personnel compared to approximately one million and two million respectively. (GOV UK, 2025; IISS, 2025). Even our own Head of the Armed Forces Sir Richard Knighton has said the UK is not as ready for the kind of full-scale conflict we might face (Knighton, 2024). The Greens’ noble intent is admirable, but does not substitute for viability.. Polanski stated he wants “to see everyone denuclearize—including Vladimir Putin” (Denyer cited in LBC, 2024). It is not a practical ideal to remove our sole trump card in the dangerous political climate we inherit and we would be blatantly naive to believe adversaries would de-nuclearize if asked.

With flaws evident in every direction from Labour, the Tories, and Reform, the choice is not. I understand their appeal but their attitude towards nuclear power and deterrence gives me significant pause. Is this a risk we are willing to take?

Bibliography

Denyer, C. (2024). Interviewed by Lewis Goodall for LBC, 9 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ksilNXNqTc GOV.UK (2025) UK defence personnel statistics. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-equipment-and-per sonnel-capability-2025 (Accessed: 26 January 2026).

Green Party (2024) Powering Up Fairer, Greener Energy. Available at: https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/powering-up-fairer-greener-ener gy/ (Accessed: 26 January 2026).

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (1992) The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 (INSAG-7). Vienna: IAEA.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2024) CO2 Emissions in 2023. Paris: IEA. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023 (Accessed:26 January 2026).

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) (2025) The Military Balance 2025. London: Routledge.

Knighton, R. (2024) Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton speech at DSEI 2024. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/air-chief-marshal-sir-richard-knighto n-speech-at-dsei (Accessed: 26 January 2026).

McBride, J. P., Moore, R. E., Witherspoon, J. P. and Blanco, R. E. (1978) ‘Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants’, Science, 202(4372), pp. 1045–1050.

Nuclear Energy Institute (2013) Holtec Used-Fuel Cask Survives Missile Strike. 27 September. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBp1FNceTTA (Accessed: 26 January 2026).

World Nuclear Association (2024) Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Available at: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plant s/fukushima-daiichi-accident (Accessed: 26 January 2026).