By Louise Gray, Environment correspondent, UK Telegraph

It is the first time the green lobby has decided to embrace the technology after years of opposition. Campaigners have traditionally been against nuclear power because of the fear of proliferation of weapons and the problem of disposing of waste.

However with Britain facing a major energy crisis in the next few years - as coal-fired power stations and old nuclear power stations close down - and with the UK Government committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050, many in the environmental movement are changing their minds. They argue that while nuclear power still has problems, climate change is a greater threat and that nuclear is a better option for keeping the lights on than building new coal-fired power stations.

The four leading environmentalists who have come out in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate. Mr Tindale, who described his turn-around as a “religious conversion”, said many more in the environment movement think “nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change”.

Around 10 power stations could be built in the UK in the next 30 years. The Government is currently consulting on sites that might be suitable for new nuclear stations and companies have expressed interest in starting to build in 2013, with the first plants coming on stream in 2018. However environmental groups remained adamant that nuclear power can’t solve the problem of climate change.

Greenpeace argue that even if new nuclear stations are built it will not stop countries like China and India burning huge amounts of coal and the only way to reduce the threat of climate change is to improve efficiency and revolutionise energy generation with cheap and green renewables. A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “Imagine if the billions wasted on the nuclear industry had been spent instead on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Then we’d really be matching our big problems with big solutions.” Read more here.

By Alex Morales, Bloomberg

A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global- warming gases. “The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles (705 kilometers) above Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. Instead, the satellite fell into the ocean near Antarctica. The mission manager said at no point did the craft pass over land.

“It’s a huge disappointment for the entire team who have worked very hard for years and years and years,” NASA Launch Director Chuck Dovale said in a briefing from California. “Even when you do your very best, you can still fail.” The Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite didn’t reach orbit after a 1:55 a.m. launch because the “payload fairing” failed to separate, NASA said. The fairing covers the top of the satellite during launch and needs to come off so the satellite can detach from the rocket and enter orbit.

“It’s disappointing because it was giving us novel information to help us move our understanding forward on global warming,” Alan O’Neill, science director of the Reading, U.K.- based Centre for Earth Observation, said in an interview. NASA said it has begun an investigation to determine what led to the malfunction.

Cole said the space agency will now decide whether to construct a new satellite or to use a spacecraft already in development. In either case it will be at least one to two years before the launch of a satellite that will monitor carbon dioxide, he said.

NASA’s investment was $273 million for the design, development and launch operations. Insurance details on the mission may be given later today, NASA said. The craft contained a monitoring device designed to collect 8 million measurements every 16 days. Scientists hoped to use the data to find out how much carbon dioxide is absorbed by the forests, grasslands and oceans, which are collectively known as “sinks.” Man-made carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is largely produced by power plants, vehicle engines and factories. The data gleaned from the satellite was intended to help guide government global-warming policy, NASA said.

“An improved understanding of carbon sinks is essential to predicting future carbon-dioxide increases and making accurate predictions of carbon dioxide’s impact on Earth’s climate,” NASA said on the Mission website. See full story here.

By James M. Taylor

Calls are mounting for President Barack Obama to fire James Hansen, the controversial figure in charge of climate studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Hansen has a record of allegedly doctoring temperature data to hype his argument that global warming is a crisis. The new calls for his resignation or termination come following his appearance in a video calling for civil disobedience at a protest at a power plant in Washington, DC.

“It is plainly improper for someone on the U.S. government payroll to advocate civil disobedience on behalf of a non-government advocacy group,” said Dan Miller, executive vice president of The Heartland Institute and former chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission. “As long as a public official is on the public payroll, his first loyalty is to his constituency, not to some outside pressure group calling on people to break the law,” Miller said.

Miller, in addition to serving as chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission from 1994 to 1998, was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame in 2005 to honor his long career as founding editor of Crain’s Chicago Business and business editor of the Chicago Sun-Times.

A video featuring Hansen is prominently displayed on the Web site of a group called Capitol Climate Action. In it, Hansen says “please join us” at a protest at a power plant in Washington, DC. The facility burns coal to generate electricity. The Web site calls on people to “surround the plant, disrupting access, and refusing to leave when asked.”

Hansen has become increasingly strident in his condemnation of coal-fired plants, which he has compared to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz during World War II. Incredibly, he has even called for Nuremberg-style trials for scientists who disagree with him about the causes and possible consequences of climate change.

“If I did what Jim has done while I was a NASA employee, I would have been drawn and quartered and then fired,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and author of Climate Confusion, published by Encounter Books in 2008.

“I have been following Jim Hansen’s travails over many years,” said Hans Labohm, a climate policy expert based in The Netherlands. “My impression is that he has been acting like a climate activist rather than a climate scientist. We in Europe tend to regard NASA as a serious scientific organisation. I have always wondered how someone like Jim Hansen could be part of it. As an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I believe I express the concerns of many people.”

“Hansen’s questionable and often outrageous use of rhetoric, ploys, and tactics should call his continued employment by the taxpayer into question,” said Chris Horner, author of Red Hot Lies, a new book on global warming from Regnery Publishing.

“It is surprising that he has been allowed to remain in such a sensitive public post,” said Terry Dunleavy, executive vice-chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition. Dunleavy, writing from New Zealand, goes on to say, “I’m not sure which is worse: Hansen’s disrespect for science or his flouting of American public service values.”

“Hansen is primarily responsible for making climate and climate change a political rather than a scientific issue, and for that alone he should be fired, especially since his position as a scientist and a bureaucrat must be apolitical,” said Dr. Timothy Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. “He has made it so that if you agree with AGW [anthropogenic global warming] you are politically left and if you disagree you are politically right and in my opinion there is no greater indictment of the politicizing of climate science,” Ball added. Read more here.  See his youtube call for mobilization here.