In yesterday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Duffy wrote about the conundrum facing environmentalists when it comes to nuclear energy, greenhouse gases and global warming:
And for our last two posts on nuclear energy in Australia, click here and here.
Thanks to Greenie Watch for the pointer.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
And yet most environmental activists still oppose nuclear power. Why so? There's naturally some concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been one of the great successes of international co-operation. As for nuclear plant safety and waste management, these are no longer significant problems. So when you weigh the small risks of going nuclear against the enormous benefits of reducing carbon emissions, you have to wonder why anyone who genuinely believes in a looming greenhouse tragedy would oppose nuclear power . . .And we have the numbers on our side. Click here for David Bradish's post from Friday on quantifying the positive environmental impact on air quality here in the U.S. provided by nuclear energy. For a more global perspective from NEI, click here.
The next time someone lectures you on the greenhouse apocalypse, they should also tell you how they feel about nuclear power. If they don't, you're entitled to have grave doubts about the fundamental seriousness of their environmental concerns.
And for our last two posts on nuclear energy in Australia, click here and here.
Thanks to Greenie Watch for the pointer.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Comments