Roger Pielke, Jr. has read Al Gore's latest speech on climate change, and thinks he knows why the former Vice President continually downplays the role nuclear energy could play in reducing future carbon emissions:
Gore's technological optimism on just about every other area of climate change policy does not square with his technological pessimism about nuclear power. My guess -- and it is only an uninformed guess -- is that Gore's views on nuclear power provide the strongest signal that he is positioning himself for a run at the Presidency in 2008. His views on nuclear power seem carefully crafted so as not to offend his base of political support. Otherwise, why wouldn't he call in grand fashion (as he has in every other area) for solving the problems of nuclear power that accompany its abundant carbon free energy? If we can freeze carbon dioxide levels we can sure keep nuclear material safe.Gary Jones builds on that thought over at Back40:
True, but far too gentle. Let's face it, Gore is stuck on stupid, pandering to a base that is stuck on stupid. I think it's a blunder because the trend is for that S.O.S. base to be ever more open to nuclear power as the strident disinformation of paleo-environmentalists (like Gore) is publicly questioned, and even some old time environmentalists are changing their stance. They are getting unstuck.Let's hope so.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity, GHG, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth