In the UK this week, the coalition government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) gave us the welcome news that plans to replace the country’s Trident nuclear weapon system have been put on hold and reductions will be made to the existing nuclear arsenal.

Replacing Trident would cost £97 billion. When the planet is facing catastrophic climate change, how is that justifiable? That money should be being spent on saving the planet not on more sophisticated and horrific ways of destroying it. Just think of the massive renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes like the ones in Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution you could establish with £97 billion. Ensuring a safe, clean and sustainable supply of energy would make the UK (along with the other nuclear armed states) far more secure while nuclear bombs in our backyard would make us definitely less secure.

Over on Greenpeace UK’s website, Louise Edge looks at what the UK government’s decision means. It’s through Louise’s and her colleagues’ hard work that the ludicrous cost of Trident has been kept in the public eye.

Read A win on Trident