[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Greens Going Nuclear- CNS News
Greens Going Nuclear -- 09/06/2001Reader Rewards Program
Greens Going Nuclear
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 06, 2001
(CNSNews.com) - The environmental movement has traditionally
viewed
nuclear energy as anathema to a healthy planet.
But a growing number in today's environmental movement are
expanding
what it means to be green by supporting nuclear energy. Some
highly
regarded environmentalists are looking to nuclear power to help
solve what they see as the Earth's greatest ecological threat -
the
theory of global warming caused by humans.
Among those promoting or advocating a re-examination of nuclear
energy are French physicist Bruno Comby; former Clinton
administration environmental advisor Jerry Mahlman; famed
environmental leader James Lovelock; Senator John Kerry
(D-Mass);
and Clinton's former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.
Nuclear energy is a cleaner energy source than fossil fuels, but
has
suffered from the stigma of radioactive waste, a "not in my back
yard" sentiment relating to nuclear plant location and waste
storage, and the risk of nuclear incidents.
But changes within the climate change debate and the nuclear
power
industry have resulted in changes in how more environmentalists
and
political liberals are warming to the idea of a fission-powered
future.
The Greening of Nuclear Power
The group Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, headed by French
author and physicist Bruno Comby, believes it makes sense for
environmentalists to embrace nuclear energy.
"There isn't any choice, the only question is how it's going to
be
done," said Comby, whose organization includes prominent
environmentalist James Lovelock, a leader in the controversial
'all
species are equal' movement.
Comby said his group was formed to bring nuclear advocates and
environmentalists together to promote nuclear power as the best
hope
to fight energy shortages and climate change.
The French physicist also believes a worldwide conversion to
more
nuclear power can be done expeditiously, and he points to his
native
country as an example. According to Comby, France went from zero
percent nuclear energy production in 1973 to near 100 percent
today.
"Any other country that has the financial resources can also do
it
in 25 years, and having the financial resources is a question of
commitment," said Comby, adding that nuclear power is "a very
economical source of energy."
Also calling for increased consideration of nuclear power is
Princeton University scientist Dr. Jerry Mahlman, a former
National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration official, and environmental
advisor to the Clinton administration. Mahlman has called for "a
reexamination" of nuclear power in light of the growing need for
cleaner emissions.
"Twenty years ago, we weren't so worried about the cost of not
using
nuclear fission energy," said Mahlman. "The fact that countries
like
France and Japan have gone seriously into (nuclear power)
without
major environmental problems suggests that the US overreacted 20
years ago."
Mahlman's leanings toward nuclear power are fueled by his
concerns
about global warming. He believes climate change treaties like
the
Kyoto Protocol are insufficient to solve the problem, telling
Science magazine in 1997 that "it might take another 30 Kyoto's
over
the next century" to deal with global warming.
So convinced is Mahlman about the threat of global warming, he
told
CNSNews.com that any skepticism of human-caused global warming
is
"baloney," saying that going nuclear may be the preferred option
to
combat the real or perceived buildup of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere.
Radical Nuclear Policy
Among the more unlikely supporters of nuclear power is James
Lovelock, considered by many environmentalists as the "guru of
the
greens." Among his credits in the environmental movement is the
"Gaia Theory."
Named after the Greek goddess of the Earth, the Gaia theory
states
that "earth is a living organism and all species are equal; it
does
not place man above the other species, it's just one of the
living
species on the planet", explained Comby.
Lovelock's Gaia Theory, first promulgated in the 1970's, has
become
the ideological foundation of many of today's environmental
laws,
including endangered species regulations and the philosophical
thrust behind the animal rights movement.
Lovelock is also considered to be the inspiration for Rachel
Carson's best selling 1962 book Silent Spring, which has been
credited with starting the modern environmental movement.
While his green bona fides are beyond reproach, Lovelock, now
82,
lamented in the preface to Comby's book Environmentalists for
Nuclear Energy, that future generations will see the harm of
global
warming and "reflect regretfully that they could have avoided
their
miseries," by greater reliance on nuclear energy. He cautions,
"I
hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and
make nuclear power our principle source of energy."
So enthusiastic is Lovelock about nuclear energy, he even
advocates
the storage of nuclear waste in natural settings, making them
too
toxic to support human development.
Lovelock stated in his writings earlier this year that "nuclear
power, although potentially harmful to people, is a negligible
danger to the planet," and asserts, "natural ecosystems can
stand
levels of continuous radiation that would be intolerable in a
city."
He notes that nuclear radiation can actually benefit plant and
animal life. He claims the land surrounding Russia's Chernobyl
nuclear plant, which experienced the world's worst nuclear
reactor
accident in 1986, "is now rich in wildlife, much more so than
neighboring populated areas."
He sees the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste as an
opportunity to promote forest conservation. "I wonder if instead
we
should use it (nuclear waste) as an incorruptible guardian of
the
beautiful places on Earth. Who would dare cut down a forest in
which
was the storage place of nuclear ash?" asked Lovelock.
But Lovelock's idea of preserving wild lands with radioactive
waste
is shared by few. Greenpeace International spokesman Damon
Moglen
called Lovelock's idea of forest conservation via nuclear waste
"ludicrous."
"Anybody who thinks Chernobyl has somehow positively effected
the
environment, needs a head cleaning", said Moglen. He added that
Lovelock's idea to store nuclear waste in the forests in order
to
discourage development was "just foolhardy, utterly foolhardy."
Greening or Glowing?
In the political arena, old rules of environmentalism are also
falling by the wayside.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the Senate's most
prominent
environmentalists, is among those willing to give nuclear power
a
fresh look.
Kerry, who received a rating of 86 from the League of
Conservation
Voters in 2000, down from a rating of 100 the year before,
boasts on
his website that he led the 1993 fight in the Senate to kill the
Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program, which he called
"environmentally unsafe technology."
However, Kerry recently has been changing his tune. "I will not
dismiss the potential for technology to solve the existing
problems
of nuclear power," said Kerry in a statement to CNSNews.com. "I
approach the debate with an open mind and do not discount any
technology or policy out of hand"
Adding further to this political mix of greens reassessing
nuclear
energy is former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who came out
strongly in favor of nuclear energy in May.
At the annual meeting of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry
advocacy group, Babbitt waded into the controversial issue of
using
the area around Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a nuclear waste
repository, saying, "It's a safe, solid geologic repository,"
and
described environmentalists opposed to nuclear energy as "deeply
irrational."
Some anti-nuclear environmentalists are baffled by this emerging
coalition of pro-nuclear greens like Babbitt. "People who call
themselves environmentalists - it confuses me as to why they
would
say nuclear is the answer," said Debbie Boger, an energy expert
with
the Sierra Club.
While she acknowledges that it's "absolutely true" the nuclear
industry has improved its safety record, Boger worries about the
"potential for catastrophic accidents," and asks, "what kind of
risks are you willing to take for that?"
Some also see another problem - the threat of pro-nuclear greens
derailing a broader environmental movement.
Moglen of Greenpeace believes support of nuclear power by
environmentalists risks undermining the broader agenda of the
green
movement. "With all respect to [nuclear converts], they should
not
be held up as the middle, they should be held up as the
periphery,"
said Moglen. "We should not be sidetracked into talking about
nuclear. It's irreverent in the climate change debate."
On the question of fossil fuel alternatives, Moglen and others
support wind and solar power, but Comby discounts such
alternatives.
"It is unrealistic to look at renewable resources. They are too
expensive," he said, adding that solar and wind power aren't
available 24 hours a day.
Just Say 'Oui' to Nuclear Power
Comby and other greens backing increased nuclear power often
point
to France as an example of how reactors have been used to
provide
electricity without negative effects on the environment.
In fact, Comby noted that France has so much nuclear-generated
energy, it exports much of its surplus power to neighboring
countries, which have strict anti-nuclear policies.
"So they are anti-nuclear and they end up buying nuclear
electricity
coming from France because they don't have enough," explained
Comby,
referring to Italy, Spain and Switzerland.
When asked if the U.S. should model its energy infrastructure
after
France, Boger responded, "France has their own problems. They
eat
frog legs in France too. Just because they're doing it, we
shouldn't
follow in their footsteps."
For its part, the nuclear energy industry welcomes green
converts
into the fold. "It's about time," said Chandler van Orman, an
official with the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear group.
"Nuclear power is clean, safe and reliable and it's affordable.
Anyone interested in clean air or climate change has to look at
nuclear as part of the solution."
Regarding fission-based energy, the American nuclear industry is
philosophically much closer to Lovelock than many of his
environmental contemporaries, a fact he lamented to the London
Independent.
"I find that side of the green movement that considers
everything
chemical as harmful, produced by a nasty organization thinking
only
of its profits and never of the good of people or humankind, as
rather absurd," said Lovelock.
But many environmentalists are not persuaded by Lovelock and
like-minded greens, and Moglen continues pressing the case for
lifestyle changes rather than increases in nuclear power.
"The U.S. needs to consider what the global impact is of driving
SUV's and of this kind of extraordinary over consumptive
attitude
that we have gotten ourselves into," argued Moglen.
Lovelock fired back, saying his fellow environmentalists "can't
really be green without being involved with science."
Bates Estabrooks
BWXT Y-12 LLC
Facility Safety- EUO Restart
PO Box 2009
MS 8193
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
865-574-7376
865-417-5066 (P)
ihk@y12.doe.gov <mailto:ihk@y12.doe.gov>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.