Here we go again.
Did you catch the bit in the Freeps today, straight from the AP, that four scientists have sent letters to environmental groups and politicians in support of nuclear energy?
With five domestic nuclear facilities performing their swan songs and the actual cost of nuclear energy finally coming to light, it was just a matter of time before the nuclear industry would harness a few gullible climate scientists to the masts of its sinking ship.
Who exactly comprises this band of brothers? I had a look on the Google.
Kerry Emanuel is a conservative climatologist, whose stand on climate change, back in 2012, so riled his Republican friends that even his wife received threatening email following his video-taped appearance at a climate change conference for Republicans in New Hampshire. He is the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Program.
Mr. Emanuel is to be praised for acknowledging the human face of Climate Change; but it can’t be overlooked that, as a conservative with Republican ties, his bias in favor of the nuclear industry is not surprising. Add to that the fact that MIT is deeply in bed with that industry and has a nuclear research facility with compelling economic reasons to favor a nuclear future. We have seen MIT’s participation in pro-nuclear public relations efforts (and in questionable research on the effects of radiation) repeatedly over the past couple of years.
James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist, bases his support for nuclear energy as the solution to the climate crisis on new and unproven nuclear technology that comes with a host of its own environmental and security issues.
Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institute has a background in software and a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences; and the fourth climate scientist to sign the letter, Tom Wigley, is associated with the University of Adelaide in Australia.
As far as I could determine, none of them has any background in nuclear engineering.
The challenges are already coming from environmental activists who insist that nuclear energy is as wrong for the planet as carbon-based energy production; and two wrongs won’t make a right:
You may have also noted that CNN just happens to be promoting its pro-nuclear documentary, “Pandora’s Promise,” this week. It’s an interesting coincidence, I think.
It’s curious that CNN, which flatters itself to be a legitimate arbiter of news, has chosen to step into an advocacy role on behalf of what is unquestionably a very controversial industry in the aftermath of Fukushima.
This is just another example of the manner in which the network has tracked steadily toward a less and less legitimate claim on being a news organization since its promising early years.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Just to round things out with a pitch for the “good guys”…There is a fundraiser Wednesday evening for Vermont’s own standard bearer in the fight for a nuclear-free future. From 4:30 until 10:00 PM Fairewinds
Associates will be the beneficiary of 10% of total sales at Bluebird BBQ at 37 Riverside Avenue in Burlington. Reservations are recommended: (802) 448-3070.
So, if you can be in Burlington Wednesday night, please make an effort to get to Bluebird because the fundraiser will only take effect if they can get twenty-five people there, and Fairewinds deserves all the help we can give them!
Technologies can be part of a solution but each and every one of them has detrimental effects on our ragged planet. While I agree that new nuclear has no place in our energy future and am in awe of Fairewinds’ work – few crusaders focus on the necessity of BIG CHANGES in how we live and operate.
Look around you…do the people you see understand their role in being part of the solution – or do they carry on as if all is “normal” and expect the answers to come from “out there” in the corporate/governmental sphere?
If Americans could reduce their environmental demands by say 20% they could likely outpace the damaging tech fixes of all kinds that pump up our profit-driven energy economy. Let’s face it–we’re too ignorant and lazy as a populace to fix what we’ve done to our own mothership. Look at the gigantic luxury homes still being built to house two people…the new wardrobes that aren’t either practical or necessary…the tons of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that people slather on their home environments. Pogo’s prophecy still trumps but we still insist that we can buy tech fixes that won’t touch our precious lifestyles.
Hansen’s support underscores an important point. Hansen is not “gullible.” He is a freaking hero. Very smart, very brave, very committed person.
But here’s the thing that we miss in forums like these, and on the nuclear issue, I’ve always been very sensitive to it.
There IS an argument for nuclear fission. It can’t – and shouldn’t – be dismissed as stupid, or conspiratorial, or corrupt. In my younger days, I myself was supportive of nuclear reactors.
I’m not now because of an ongoing, reasoned assessment of the risks, ongoing environmental costs, as well as the underlying financials. But if you asked me, I could still make a very compelling argument for modern-day nuclear power.
And I believe that being able to do so, makes me a stronger advocate AGAINST it, given that I have accumlated strong counter-arguments to all my strong arguments.
Not everyone is going to make that same calculus. In an activist setting, that doesn’t matter much. But when we assail someone like Hansen as a dope who shouldn’t be taken seriously, we undermine the intellectuality of our own positions. He should be taken seriously, and he should be countered.
There’s also the creepy, 1984-esque flip-flopping the left does on who “the enemy” is in situations like this. Hansen was, before now, a hero of the left for his climate advocacy. Turning on a dime and castigating him as gullible is disturbing and – again – impacts our credibility.
So on those times when a Hansen pops up with someone like this, rather than the “what a dope” or “he’s now on the dark side” or whatever, we should deconstruct his arguments. Hell… wouldnt it be something if we could get him here, on this website, in some sort of back and forth with Arnie. Probably not gonna happen, but someone of his stature and note require that we engage with his “wrongness” in thoughtful ways, IMHO.
I cannot know that; but that is my impression of the group.
It is the timing of their letter that makes me highly suspicious. Calling them “gullible” is my way of saying that I assume generally good intentions on their part, but not on the part of the nuclear industry which is fighting for its very survival.
To me, this looks to be part of a pattern of very well orchestrated public disinformation that has been going on for some time.
He may be a hero to you; but to me, this stance now makes him part of the problem.