[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.