Former anti-nuclear advocates makes case for nuclear power

New York Times writer Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, the pop culture economics books that sold 3 million copies, caused a stir recently when he suggested that the person to blame for global warming was Jane Fonda. He was half joking, but his point was that anti-nuclear advocates helped force the United States to chose coal over nuclear power to produce electricity causing a sharp increase in the production of greenhouse gases.

Eventually Dubner gets to the real culprit, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, which taught a generation of Americans as well as Europeans to fear nuclear power. He suggests that the tide is turning on nuclear power public opinion because people are now choosing the risks of nuclear energy over the uncertainty of global warming.

James Lovelock, is a pioneering environmental scientist from England, best known for his hypothesis that the Earth, which he calls Gaia, acts as a single giant organism. He was the first major environmentalist to suggest that the risk of global warming was far greater and more pressing than the risks of nuclear power.

Dubner is suggesting a new book could help spread the message, “Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens, a former anti-nuclear activist. The introduction is written by Pulitzer Prize winning author of the book “The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes.

He also wrote a history of the Argonne National Laboratory, which operated at the Idaho National Laboratory during its glory years of nuclear reactor research. His interview of Idaho Falls nuclear genius Charles Till for Frontline’s Nuclear Reaction broadcast was the first positive piece on nuclear power in two decades on national television in 1997.

Because of the INL, Idaho’s anti-nuclear sentiment has been weaker than other places. However, the Snake River Alliance has kept anti-nuclear feeling alive here, especially in Boise and Ketchum.

It’s effectiveness was best in the 1980s when it led the effort to stop the pumping of nuclear waste into the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer and helped keep the Department of Energy from building new nuclear weapons production facilities on the desert site. It has had recent victories, stopping a nuclear waste incinerator, and now has spread its mission to promote renewable energy and conservation.

It will face, like all anti-nuclear groups, the challenge of having to argue that climate change is a world crisis that requires immediate, far-reaching changes in society. Yet the long-term dangers of nuclear power are so great that these risks should outweigh the benefits of its low carbon power production.

Until the next Chernobyl, that argument is going to be harder to make.

Questions for the Candidates

To put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, “What is more threatening, a beneficial 1 degree (F) rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks - with steepening declines in the pipeline? Can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades ----- the most likely scenario?”

Does it make you sick too?

That a nobody like Jane Fonda, and other nobodies like her, are partly responsible for this country getting so dependant on dirty energy. Last I heard, Jane is not having any trouble paying her high energy bills and she's rather snooty to us common folk. Hollywood Idiots should not effect energy policy, war policy, or any other policy that requires intelligent though and scientific knowledge.

Not after I see Barbarella again...

By impulse I search for Duran Duran "Girls On Film" most every time...

Negative environmentalists

It doesn't surprise me that environmentalist opposition to nuclear and inaction against coal is a factor contributing to global warming.

The environmental movement has been slow to come around to the idea that it must support some things as much as it opposes others. For decades, they opposed nuclear but offered no viable emissions-free alternative - despite huge subsidies over 30 years, wind and solar are still less than 1 percent of our nation's energy. Environmentalists have earned the perception that they are negative and obstructionist.

The Snake River Alliance finally got the hint and has added renewable energy promotion to its list of goals. Still, when neighbor opposition killed a wind farm in eastern Idaho, the SRA was nowhere to be seen supporting wind energy. The message I get is: When it's time to oppose something, rally the troops and show how effective you are. When it's time to support something, make vague statements, refer people to your Web site and go home.

Is a negative environmentalist like...

negative calories? Not really there?

We could just blame cows...

more gas, more filling

BEEF. It's what for SHEEEEEEEYYYOOOOOUUU Bossy! Hold still my little entree!

Left's silence about Carbon Bigfoot--immigration

Where are the left's environmentalists on the carbon generated by millions of illegal immigrants from low carbon producing nations like Mexico? They sneak in here on foot but soon drive cars ,use electricity,etc,etc. And breed. Any problem here, environmentally speaking??

Sleep it off man!

The hangover will be a ***** but you'll survive.