Tuesday, December 08, 2009
"Environmentalists Admit Being Wrong for 40 Years..."
This headline uses the word "wrong" which seems a bit strong.
Perhaps the football term "upon further review" would be more appropriate.
Realistically, I think every form of producing energy has some drawbacks, and they should all be considered, using cost-benefit analysis by disinterested parties, which is probably wishful thinking...
Perhaps the football term "upon further review" would be more appropriate.
Realistically, I think every form of producing energy has some drawbacks, and they should all be considered, using cost-benefit analysis by disinterested parties, which is probably wishful thinking...
Anyway, at OilPrice.com, the Energy Hedge Fund Syndicate posted this along with the background:
"Although very little happened, Nov. 24 was a red letter day for the nation's nuclear power industry. No new nuclear reactors were purchased, no breakthrough in treating nuclear waste was announced, and the Obama administration did not declare that it would pay for new reactors.
Instead, the source of the industry's happiness was The Washington Post leading Page One with an article that detailed how the environmental movement, after 40 years of bitter opposition, now concedes that nuclear power will play a role in averting further harm from global warming.
Mind you, not every environmental group has come around; but the feared and respected Natural Resources Defense Council in the United States has allowed that there is a place for nuclear power in the world's generating mix and Stephen Tindale, a former anti-nuclear activist with Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom, has said, yes, we need nuclear."
