Skip to main content

Winning the Public Relations Battle One Mind at a Time

A few days ago, I noted a post from Steven Aplin about how Ontario's achievements in carbon emissions reduction are being purposely ignored by environmental activists.

Then again, there are others who understand the need for new nuclear, like David Goodings of Burlington, Ontario, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star:
Like the proverbial generals who continue to fight the last war while preparing for the next one, Greenpeace Canada's Dave Martin continues to tilt against nuclear power with 30-year-old arguments – despite the fact that the world around him has dramatically changed.

An entirely different opinion was recently expressed by the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who had this to say in a May 11, 2007 article in the Hamilton Spectator: "When I helped found Greenpeace in Vancouver in the 1970s, my colleagues and I were firmly opposed to nuclear energy. But times have changed. I now realize nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy Canada's growing demand for energy."

Environmentalist James Lovelock has also recognized nuclear energy's contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Three years ago, he wrote: "We cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables – wind, tide and water power – can provide enough energy and in time.... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy."

As society shifts away from coal, oil and natural gas, it is inevitable that demand for electrical power will grow, despite efforts aimed at conservation and energy efficiency. It is fortunate that public opinion in Ontario, the U.K. and elsewhere appears to be moving rapidly toward accepting nuclear energy.
Looks like a battle that's going to be won one person at a time.

Comments

And how will it be won, one person at a time?

Does it not require the internet age equivalent of a phone tree, chiefly among young people, and chiefly on campuses around the country? And how shall we do this?

I have no silver bullet answers to the above questions; I simply wish to put them out for consideration.
Anonymous said…
Speaking of Lovelock and young people, did anybody else notice the today's UK news story of the results of a May 2007 poll conducted right around release of the government energy white paper where support for nuclear power has fallen to around 35%. The percentage opposed has remained roughly the same so the supporters must have moved into undecided and "don't knows". More than a third of the UK public doesn't have a view on nuclear pro or con the poll found.

Chief among the growing disenchantment with nuclear power was women and a newly discovered shift in opinion of young people age groups up to 44 years of age.

Clearly nuclear power can lose a mind one person at a time, as well and even by whole age brackets.

gunter
Randal Leavitt said…
People who think that nuclear power is good are going to have to do some work. There are lots of opportunities. Currently the UK government is asking for input concerning its future nuclear power policies. People should use this to write some overpowering statements about nuclear energy. The UK government will read them. The request for input is here:

http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/

I am developing my response here:

http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/

Speak out, and encourage others to do the same.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin