Skip to main content

Four Noted Climate Change Scientists Say: More Nuclear Energy, Please.

Four of the world’s top climate scientists issued an open letter urging environmental groups and politicians worldwide to support nuclear energy as a primary way to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions known to contribute to global warming.

James Hansen

of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and formerly at NASA, Ken Caldeira, senior scientist in the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at Australia’s University of Adelaide, wrote that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy cannot by themselves stem the threat of global warming.

The letter agrees that:

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.

While the authors say that it is theoretically possible to achieve global carbon emission reduction goals without an increased use of nuclear energy, “in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.”

The letter echoes views shared by the nuclear energy industry. Responding to President Barack Obama’s climate change action plan earlier this year, NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel said,

As a nation, we cannot reach our energy and climate goals without the reliable, carbon-free electricity that nuclear power plants generate to power our homes, businesses and infrastructure.

Similarly, the scientists note the small risk associated with nuclear energy.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels,” the letter says, continuing that decision makers should be guided by “facts and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

Hansen, known for his high profile climate change activism while at NASA, told the Associated Press “They’re cheating themselves [environmentalists] if they keep believing this fiction that all we need” is renewable energy.”

Hansen has also been a noted supporter of nuclear energy. In a study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, he and a co-author argued that nuclear plants saved 1.8 million lives by displacing coal facilities and held the potential to save 7 million additional lives in the next 40 years if nuclear energy facilities replaced coal plants.

So joining Hansen with three prominent climate scientists – and in different areas of the issue – gives this letter unusual heft and potential influence. Expect to see a good deal of coverage of it and, if we’re lucky, some discussion pro and con. The more the ideas in this letter get play, the better for nuclear energy. It has become increasingly clear that it is the logical way forward if we mean to get to grips with climate change.


Fertel issued a statement specifically about this letter that broadens the perspective quite a bit:

“The letter puts an exclamation point on a phenomenon that has been unfolding for several years, namely the steady growth in support for nuclear energy from leading environmentalists – Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore to name just a few. Greenhouse gas emissions would be vastly higher if nuclear energy facilities did not provide 40 percent of the electricity globally that is produced by carbon-free sources of power (63 percent in the United States).

“This is why James Hansen and the other scientists make this point: ‘In the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.’ There is ever-increasing recognition of this analysis.

“When the Robert Stone documentary ‘Pandora’s Promise’ airs this Thursday night on CNN, viewers will see environmental leaders who are embracing nuclear energy, and hear them explain why they’ve reached the conclusions they have regarding the value of nuclear energy to preserve our environment.”

CNN makes this connection, too, at the link holding the whole letter – as Fertel points out, the network is showing Pandora’s Promise this Thursday. There doesn’t seem to be any explicit coordination between the letter and the movie showing, but there doesn’t need to be any: they both make the same worthwhile point.


Joffan said…
"Expect to see a good deal of coverage of it and, if we’re lucky, some discussion pro and con."

Sadly what I expect to see is a lot of people denying that these four men are capable scientists and asserting that they have been bribed.

The issues getting discussed - well, it might happen in some few areas but much more likely to be drowned out in nonsense and outrage.
jim said…
That this isn't getting much play in the green world or the media shows how bias is not just blind but hypocritical. Good luck to Pandora's Promise!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
I see high-visibility stories in the New York Times, Forbes, CNN. Not sure what you're complaining about?

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

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.


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…