By Phoebe Arslanagić-Little
Hinkley Point C has been pushed back in part because of regulatory requirements around protecting fish. It’s just one example of how the UK frequently prioritises animals over humans, says Phoebe Arslanagić-Little
When it’s built, nuclear power station Hinkley Point C will generate enough electricity to power around 6m homes for 60 years. It will also save 9m tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere every year it runs. Sounds good for us, and good for the environment.
But we’ll have to wait to enjoy these benefits because Hinkley Point C is delayed – the first of its two reactors was originally intended to start producing power in 2027, but that’s been pushed back to 2031. There’s no information on when the second reactor might begin working.
Sam Dumitriu of Britain Remade wrote about Hinkley Point C recently, and about the factors behind the delays, including a 31,000-page environmental impact assessment produced for the project. One issue in the mammoth report is the risk that the power station poses to fish, which can get caught and killed when sea water is pumped into the plant.
In order to save 18 to 46 tonnes of fish per year – which Hinkley Point-builders EDF say is less than the annual catch of a single small fishing vessel – millions of pounds have already been spent on fish protection measures, including a fish recovery and return system. Yet EDF is also currently trying to convince regulators to remove a requirement to install an acoustic fish deterrent. This would work by using 288 speakers to make an underwater noise louder than a jumbo jet, every day and night for the 60 years of the power station’s life (what effect will that have on marine creatures?). I’m a vegan and don’t eat animals, including fish, for ethical reasons. But even for me, this goes too far.
But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that such gargantuan efforts have been expended to protect the lives of innocent fish, even when vital infrastructure is at stake – the UK is a country that takes animals very seriously.
In 2022, seven out of the top ten charities people said they were most likely to leave a gift to in their will were animal charities. And in 2023, ordinary Brits donated £1.25bn to animal welfare charities, the third most popular type of charity to give to. Our furry friends were beaten out from the top two spots only by children and religious organisations. Types of charities left trailing far behind the likes of Cats Protection and the Blue Cross included those who help the homeless and those focused on medical research.
Our philanthropic instincts towards animals go back some way. Britain was the very first country to pass animal protection laws and also the first to have an animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in 1824. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children arrived only six decades later.
Ultimately, our national devotion to animal welfare flows from a noble desire to do right by fellow living creatures who cannot advocate for themselves, to preserve their habitats and let them lead good lives. Leaving aside the bizarre furore over Geronimo the alpaca, we generally realise when we’ve gone too far, as shown by the backlash to the 2021 Kabul animal airlift that prioritised rescuing dogs over people when the Taliban retook Afghanistan’s capital.
But I still wish that people who worry about the hapless fish that Hinkley Point C will suck in, or are troubled by the memory of Geronimo’s execution, would spare a thought for the billion factory farm chickens slaughtered a year in the UK. Or the distressed dairy cows that are separated early from their calves. But then, a vegan would feel that way.
