noticecopyright

Monday, April 17, 2006

 

Going Nuclear

`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.’




One Response to “Going Nuclear”

  1. James Aach Says:

    You might find this interesting. It’s a unique lay person’s guide to nuclear power (a novel) endorsed by Stewart Brand, who’s mentioned in the Wash Post piece by Mr. Moore. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com .

Leave a Reply

profile