Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
What to Say to Those Who Think Nuclear Power Will Save Us
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Unemployed and on the Verge of Losing Everything: "I Don't Know How I'll Make It"
Rachel Neumann
DrugReporter:
This Is Your Country on Drugs: How the DARE Generation Got High
Ryan Grim
Environment:
Wildfires Are Linked to Global Warming -- But Media Obscure the Relationship
Sam Kornell
Health and Wellness:
Labor Rallies for Health Care, But Keeps it Vague
Jane Slaughter
Immigration:
Meatless Mondays: Do Something Good for the Earth and Your Health
Kathy Freston
Media and Technology:
Will the Tragedy of Michael Jackson's Life Be Inherited By His Kids?
Patricia J. Williams
Movie Mix:
This Time, Pixar Has Gone Too Far
Eileen Jones
Politics:
Breadline USA: Why People Are Going Hungry in the Land of Plenty
Sasha Abramsky
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Are People Obsessed with Their Kids?
Vanessa Richmond
Rights and Liberties:
In Iran, Fears That a Prominent Prisoner Detained In Election Upheaval Could Die in Jail
Katie Mattern
Sex and Relationships:
Why the Left Looks Like a Big Hypocrite in the Sanford Affair
JoAnn Wypijewski
Take Action:
Pressuring Obama to Make the Right Decision on Health Care is AlterNet's Top Campaign of the Week
Byard Duncan
Water:
David v. Goliath: Help Michigan Citizens Protect Their Water from Nestle's Bottling Operations
Leslie Samuelrich
World:
High Noon in Honduras
Laura Carlsen
Chances are good, gentle reader, that you are going to have to sit next to someone in the coming year who will assert that nuclear power is the solution to climate change. What will you tell them?
There's so much to say. You could be sitting next to someone who hasn't really considered the evidence yet. Or you could be sitting next to scientist and Gaia theorist James Lovelock, a supporter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy™, which quotes him saying, "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available, energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."
If you sit next to Lovelock, you might start by mentioning that half the farms in this country had windmills before Marie Curie figured out anything about radiation or Lise Meitner surmised that atoms could be split. Wind power is not visionary in the sense of experimental. Neither is solar, which is already widely used. Nor are nukes safe, and they take far too long to build to be considered readily available. Yet Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth Catalog fame, has jumped on the nuclear bandwagon, and so has Greenpeace founding member turned PR flack Patrick Moore. So you must be prepared.
Of course the first problem is that nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything. A bicycle is a better answer to a Chevrolet Suburban than a Prius is, and so is a train, or your feet, or staying home, or a mix of all those things.
Nuclear power plants, like coal-burning power plants, are about retaining the big infrastructure of centralized power production and, often, the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power. But this may be too complicated to get into while your proradiation interlocutor suggests that letting a thousand nuclear power plants bloom would solve everything.
Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they'd like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard, which mostly they would rather not, though they'd happily have it in your backyard. This is why the populous regions of the eastern U.S. keep trying to dump their nuclear garbage in the less-populous regions of the West.
My friend Chip Ward (from nuclear-waste-threatened Utah) reports, "To make a difference in global climate change, we would have to immediately build as many nuclear power plants as we already have in the U.S. (about 100) and at least as many as 2,000 worldwide." Chip goes on to say that "Wall Street won't invest in nuclear power because it is too risky. ... The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island taught investment bankers how a two-billion-dollar investment can turn into a billion-dollar clean-up in under two hours." So we, the people, would have to foot the bill.
| Reprint Notice: |
| This article appears in the May/June 2007 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, ($40/year for 6 issues). Subscriptions are available online: www.orionmagazine.org. |
Nuclear power proponents like to picture a bunch of clean plants humming away like beehives across the landscape. Yet when it comes to the mining of uranium, which mostly takes place on indigenous lands from northern Canada to central Australia, you need to picture fossil-fuel-intensive carbon-emitting vehicles, and lots of them -- big disgusting diesel-belching ones.
But that's the least of it. The Navajo are fighting right now to prevent uranium mining from resuming on their land, which was severely contaminated by the postwar uranium boom of the 1940s and 1950s. The miners got lung cancer. The children in the area got birth defects and a 1,500 percent increase in ovarian and testicular cancer. And the slag heaps and contaminated pools that were left behind will be radioactive for millennia.
See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, nuclear power
An antinuclear activist in Nevada from 1988 to 2002, Rebecca Solnit just put up a clothesline in the backyard and will get around to installing the solar panels any day now. National Book Critics Circle award-winner Solnit's most recent book is Storming the Gates of Paradise.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »