Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Greenpeace cofounder: Go nuclear to save our planet

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:49 AM
Original message
Greenpeace cofounder: Go nuclear to save our planet
Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country. What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story...

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dunvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, we should stop (via bombing) Iran going "nuclear energy?"
Even if they have a nuclear weapon, are the Iranians less stable than North Korea?

I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PageOneQ Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Moore is a fraud....What BullS**
Edited on Sun Apr-16-06 10:00 AM by PageOneQ
I used to work at Greenpeace. Patrick Moore is a nut job who sold out Looooooong ago. Everyone in the movement knows it.

Here's an article from Wired called "Eco-Traitor" from March of 2004:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html

From the article:

"He'll whore himself to anything to make a buck," says Paul George, founder of the Western Canada Wildlife Committee. In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, "You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrannyD Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. I know
Didn't he become some kind of lobbyist or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. he has a point
the major problem is what do we do with the waste?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. He doesn't even mention the problem of waste
Which i think is rather odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I noticed that also. That is extremely strange
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I ask anyone who touts the "new solution" about the waste.
Edited on Sun Apr-16-06 10:17 AM by madeline_con
I also mention nuclear waste buried in salt mines. :scared:

Edited for clarity, I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. Dr. Tim Flannery agrees
Edited on Sun Apr-16-06 10:24 AM by leftchick
I heard him on NPR a while back and he said pretty much the same. China has been way ahead in developing safer, smaller nuclear power plants. He actually changed my mind on the issue.


http://www.theweathermakers.com/




Tim Flannery is one of the world's leading writer-scientists and thinkers in environmental science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. He did not state that nuclear power was THE answer in his book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. He said it was one of the answers
that and having countries like Australia and The US sign the Kyoto accord and comply with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Recent interview w/Flannery -- nuclear for China & India - not Australia

...Asked whether he thought nuclear power was part of the solution, he said it was "inevitable, indeed desirable" that China and India use nuclear power for energy.

There was a murmur of displeasure in the crowd. The Blair Government is considering expanding its nuclear program, but the plan is contentious. Wind and solar power were the answer, Attenborough declared. People applauded, but Dr Flannery did not back down.

"I am not suggesting that nuclear power is at all problem-free," he said. Coal-burning was so devastating that hard decisions had to be made.

Yet Dr Flannery believes strongly that although Australia should sell uranium, it should not go nuclear itself. Because of its reserves of gas, geo-thermal power, sun and wind, he doesn't think it needs to.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientist-turns-up-heat-on-australias-climate-of-folly/2006/03/10/1141701692765.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dunvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. What's the informed consensus on the Candian CANDU reactors?
Better? Worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. First thing a proponent should say or write is how to handle waste. Then,
Edited on Sun Apr-16-06 10:42 AM by higher class
if plausible, possible, plainly valid, then ... they can present the rest of their pitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Doesn't matter what anybody does
there's no way to get any sort of technology online to stop the irreversible forces already set in motion

it's WAY too late already

earth is in the process of cleansing itself of the worst scourge it's ever suffered: us

have a nice Earth day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC