The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER
April/May 2006
By Mark Hertsgaard
Taxpayer subsidies for high-risk nuclear power plants
should be redirected to promote alternative energy.
RELATED ARTICLES
With winter approaching, energy-efficient homes look more appealing than ever. Houses that require ...
Power plants require water to scrub pollutants, cool machinery, produce the steam necessary to turn...
The U.S. Department of Energy's work with the city of Greensburg, Kan., over the past year is beari...
The topic of alternative energy can be confusing. Fortunately, some of the best minds in the field ...
Improving the energy efficiency of your home can save you money and reduce your carbon footprint. L...
By Mark Hertsgaard
During a July 2005 lecture in San
Francisco, Jared Diamond, author of the best-selling book
Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest and most prominent
environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear power as a
necessary response to global warming.
Addressing an overflow crowd at the Cowell Theater about
why some societies fail and others dont (the theme of his
most recent book, Collapse), Diamond three times cited
global warming as a threat that could ruin modern
civilization. During the question period, Diamond was asked
if he agrees with Stewart Brand, whose Long Now Foundation
sponsored the lecture, that global warming poses such a
grave threat that humanity should embrace nuclear power. It
was a delicate moment, because Brand the former editor of
The Whole Earth Catalog was on stage with Diamond.
I did not know that Stewart Brand said that, Diamond
replied. But yes, to deal with our energy problems we need
everything available to us, including nuclear power.
Nuclear power, he added, should simply be done carefully,
like they do in France, where there have been no accidents.
I did not expect that answer, Brand said. Neither, it
seemed, did much of the audience. Overwhelmingly white and
affluent, most audience members had nodded reverentially at
everything Diamond had said thus far about the
self-destructiveness of ancient civilizations that leveled
forests (Easter Island) or eroded soils (the Mayans) in
pursuit of short-term gain; and about the need for the
United States to rethink its core value of consumerism if
it hopes to survive. They had clapped when Diamond mocked
President Bushs see-no-evil approach to environmental
protection. Yet now Diamond was urging an expansion of
nuclear power, a technology most environmentalists regard
as irredeemably evil.
Deal with it, crowed Brand as the crowd sat in stunned
silence.
It was smug but useful advice, for this debate is bound to
intensify. The Bush administration and much of Congress are
pushing hard to revive the nuclear industry, which
currently provides 20 percent of Americas electricity.
In June 2005, Bush became the first president in 26 years
to visit a nuclear power plant, specifically the Calvert
Cliffs facility near Washington, D.C., where he endorsed
nuclear as an environmentally friendly energy source. His
administrations 2006 budget increased nuclear power funding
by 5 percent, even as it cut overall renewable energy
funding.
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Next >>