Greenpeace Founder on Global Warming

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

BY ROCKY BARKER - rbarker@idahostatesman.com Edition Date: 04/24/08 Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. "It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident." The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said. With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said. Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said. Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology. He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales. In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy. He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability. He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful. "We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies." His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out. "The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.

I'm for it. People are overly sensitive to the word 'nuclear power' because of stuff like Chernobyl. By and large, it's pretty safe, however.

Kingtiger wrote: Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

Regardless of whether this guy is crazy or not, we need nuclear power, and we need it now.

Susan Storm wrote: Kingtiger wrote: Don't forget 3 mile island. Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

None but it gave us countless Troma Movies

Neat to think about, probably won't happen for another 50 years.

I still laugh at the idea that global warming is happening because I drive an SUV.

I suppose humans are responsible for this too.

Bunk. Paranoid bunk.

As for nuclear power, Despite being a good idea, its as realistic as us being able to build and update oil refineries. Too many powerful special interest groups will fight it and it'll never get off the ground. In fact, it'll be lucky to even hit the tarmac.

/rant that will piss off the hippies.

Perhaps it is completely relevant?

.....and denied by science believers?


Edited by Reb Cpl - 29 April 2008 at 11:38am

How come it works one way, but not the other? My reasons and material are 'cherry picking' and "An inconvenient truth" is gospel?

Thats why I don't usually bother with these things, they go nowhere. It's fun to poke at it with a stick, but in the end, nothing gets accomplished.

Nuclear power is never going to be the global power source that it could be for the simple reason that it would again break the world into the "haves" and "have-nots" when it comes to sources of power. The US and it's western allies will not allow others to develop nuclear programs unless we see fit. Look at North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, and any other number of states that we have stopped from creating nuclear power (either for military or civilian use). What that means is that when the world decides to crack-down on polluting nations like the India and China, they'll have the ability to switch to Nuclear power, however, non-nuclear countries that are trying to develop and must rely on fossil fuels due to not having the funding for a nuclear program will be left behind. We will hold them hostage. They'll either face economic sanctions for their use of polluting fossil fuels, or they'll wind up paying some large power for their excess energy produced using nuclear power.

As for safety...

While nuclear power has become far more safe in the past decade, the fact is that of all of the civilian nuclear accidents to happen from 1950 to present day, of the 22 reported civilian nuclear accidents, 10 of them have been of an INES level greater than 4 (meaning that the area surrounding the plant has been contaminated including non-plant personnel). That, to me, isn't a great safety record when dealing with a power source who's most common by-products are Cesium 137, Iodine 131, and Strontium 90. All products which become airborne rapidly and cause lasting damage to any and all who come in contact with them.

The fact is, nuclear power is neither as dangerous nor as safe as both sides of the argument say it is. It's a bandaide for our current energy needs, but until we come up with something better, I'd support it's use here in the US and in other stabilized western countries so long as only newer "safer" reactor styles are approved and used.