Skip to main content

A Cry for Common Sense Environmentalism

Here's Katherine Booth from the Yale Daily News:
Environmentalism is a great idea, up to a point. Let's run our buses on used cooking oil and recycle our red plastic cups, but let's also look to nuclear energy and expanded oil drilling in the United States to take care of our short-term energy crisis. Renewable energy may feel good initially, but a million wind turbines in Yellowstone or Yosemite would be ugly, expensive and incredibly inefficient. Look up the statistics - wind turbines and solar panels don't produce nearly the power you thought. And if you don't want wind turbines in Yosemite or the Branford courtyard, do you want them covering the state of Oklahoma? The self-righteousness of the environmentalist movement tries to make the conflict black and white, to sharply delineate between those who support the environment and those who gleefully turn it into a stinking cesspool. But even those who claim to be "environmentalists" are willing to take the fight only so far.

Of course Yale isn't going to put up windmills: not in Branford, not on Old Campus, not on top of Kline Biology Tower - but if they did, you'd have a right to be pissed off. So let's stop supporting equally ridiculous and impractical ideas elsewhere. If we dispense with the self-righteousness and base our opinions and decisions on a broader view of what is important - before the environmentalists decide that because humans are the cause of pollution, we ought to just get rid of them - we might find that most people, regardless of party affiliation, care about the Earth and are willing to move toward solutions that make sense.
A woman wise beyond her years.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…