It is with great trepidation that I am coming out of the closet on energy generation policy, because my position rubs a lot of greens the wrong way. One ex-friend stopped talking with me on account of it. But this has to be said, because the CO2 emissions problem is becoming increasingly dire. Unfortunately, one belief strongly held by many greens is simply, and dangerously, mistaken.
I advocate nuclear power. 65% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science support nuclear power. See:Pew poll of AAAS members
That’s quite a switch from my anti-nuclear position five years ago. Then, browsing through the new release science section at Barnes & Noble, I happened to pick up a book by Michael H. Fox, Why We Need Nuclear Power. Michael H. Fox is professor emeritus of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences at Colorado State University. Given his area of study—principally, the effect of radiation on biological tissue—I figured this guy might have something significant to say about radiation, nuclear energy, human health, and climate change. He did. His explanations of what ionizing radiation does and does not do to the body, and how the body repairs itself, were eye-openers. I recommend his book for those seeking scientific facts, rather than gross exaggerations, concerning the health hazards of radiation.
What Fox said turned me around 180 degrees in my thinking about nuclear energy. Once you start questioning anti-nuclear dogma, you soon find out that there are many people with strong environmental credentials who support nuclear power—not that they (most of them, anyway) love it, but they see it as a practical necessity in the fight against CO2 pollution. For a taste of their view, check out this piece in the Washington Post (if you are barred by a paywall, let me know in the comments and I’ll write you a summary): environmentalists, nuclear energy, and climate change
At this point I’ll turn the argument over to someone much better qualified, better informed, and articulate than I, with a link below to his TED talk. (Followed by a link to the organization he founded, Environmental Progress.) His name is Michael Shellenberger. Look him up on the web, and you will see that his life’s work on social justice and environmental responsibility stack up favorably against any Green on the public stage. If you have the time but then refuse to watch his 20-minute talk, you might want to wonder just how open-minded you are.
[One more point before watching Shellenberger: I am not against renewable energy in the form of solar and wind, and I applaud their advances—it’s just that, on the scale required to keep a modern industrial economy running, solar and wind can’t nearly fill the bill. It is notable that worldwide, hydroelectric still comprises the greatest share of zero-carbon-emissions renewable generation, and it runs 24/7/365. The problem with hydro is the amount of natural habitat it eats up—and we need to preserve as much natural habitat as we can in order to avoid a biodiversity disaster.]
Enough of me, here’s Shellenberger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
And Environmental Progress: http://environmentalprogress.org/energy-and-environment/
I’ll have more to say on nuclear energy in future posts. I’m hoping that by that time, Shellenberger’s talk may have softened you up. 🙂
Shellenberger is very convincing. Where have I heard those arguments for nuclear energy before? Oh, yes; from Mark Heinicke.