Meet Jonathan Hodges:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy
I believe that nuclear energy is the only short term solution to the energy problem until solar power becomes more efficient and viable on a large scale. And one of Greenpeace’s founders agrees with my opinion, despite the organization’s opposition to virtually every currently viable form of energy. In order to reduce atmospheric pollution and to address the issue the waning fossil fuel supply, nuclear energy is the only viable source in which to turn. New reactor technologies (i.e. breeder reactors) since the last plant was built in the US (1970’s) means even more efficient energy production. Building more nuclear power plants would provide additional clean energy sources in a time when there are shortages in energy across the country along with increasing pollution primarily from coal burning plants.It's amazing to see the effect Patrick Moore's op-ed has had on the Blogosphere. Click here to see what I'm talking about.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy
Comments
on the other hand, james lovelock makes no money (that i know of) from interested parties and still touts nuclear as a solution.
There's no evidence that he only holds his beliefs because he's paid to. In fact, the article you supply states:
Nonetheless, he adds, he refuses to tailor his opinions to please a client. "People don't pay me to say things they've written down or made up. They pay me to tell them what I think." Furthermore, he maintains that his positions - with the exception of his take on nuclear energy (which he now favors) - have hardly changed since 1971. The rest of the movement, he says, has shifted around him.
It's your choice to believe him or not, of course. It would be impossible to prove beyond any doubt he is sincere. But I can see little evidence to falsify this claim, unless you have something other than that he gets paid.
On a side note, Greenpeace activists get paid too, but nobody says they are biased.
My statement in saying "nobody says they are biased" was one highlighting the hypocracy of those who try to say pro-nuclear/pro-corporate advocates are biased while not holding the anit-nuclear/anti-corporate advocates to the same level of scrutiny. The use of "nobody" was a bit imprecise, I admit.
Nonetheless, it is good to see exact facts and figures to back up my point.
Great data about Rockefeller Foundation activities.
There are plenty of other institutions with petroleum roots including but not limited to the MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the J. Paul Getty Foundation that provide plenty of money to the anti-nuclear activists.