Two of UK’s top green advisors (read socialist Luddites) lashed out against government’s plan to build nuclear power stations dismissing them as “technological megafix“.
Let’s start with some basics. Global Warming theory stipulates that increases of atmospheric CO2 due to human activities will cause dangerous climate change and threaten life as we know it. Most anthropogenic CO2 comes from coal-fired power stations and therefore we need to replace coal energy with CO2-free alternatives. At the moment we have only one serious alternative to coal and it is nuclear. Don’t listen to tree-huggers with their solar and wind wet dreams. Neither of these technologies can produce stable baseload electricity to run our 24/7 industrial societies. We can cover our entire countries with wind turbines and solar panels, but this will not shut down a single coal power plant because they are needed for backup when the wind ain’t blowin’ or it gets dark.
So, if climate change really is the greatest threat facing humanity, nuclear energy should be seriously considered. Yes, there are serious drawbacks but overall they are much smaller than supposed dangers of Global Warming, otherwise Al Gore would be jetting around the world telling us nuclear energy is the greatest threat facing humanity.
Why then did UK’s top green advisors slam nuclear power? Well, as we discussed earlier, environmentalism is not really about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or saving whales. It is an anti-capitalist ideology masking behind fashionable environmental concern. This is quite clear from some of the comments made by these green advisors. For example Professor Tim Jackson, said the decision to opt for nuclear power was “a blatant failure of moral vision”. Moral vision? CO2 is a gas, a chemical compound, where is morality here? If CO2 really is a problem, find the CO2-free alternatives and the case is closed.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, gives even better illustration of what environmentalism is all about:
“The government response [to climate change] should not be in technological fixes. It should be in transforming society…. decentralising and decarbonising the economy. The Labour government has very little interest in these approaches. Pulling a technological megafix, like nuclear power, out of the hat is easier from a political point of view but it misses the essence of climate change which is transforming people’s lives.”
Got it? It is not about reducing CO2 in the most efficient and cost-effective way, it is about transforming society into something Sir Jonathon Porritt and his Luddite mates would approve.
The cheeky buggers even dare to criticise nuclear power for needing public subsidies:
“Nuclear power will not survive on its own in the marketplace. The government will have to use voodoo economics to underwrite new capacity. The only beneficiaries of this decision are the handful of big energy companies,”
Blimey! Aren’t we being told that we need to put a price on carbon, establish carbon trading and implement carbon taxes in order to make alternative energy like wind and solar viable? And where would that money come from if not the taxpayers? Would it grow on trees? Who is using voodoo economics here?
Let’s get one thing clear, anthropogenic CO2 is either a serious problem or it is not. If it is, anything that can reduce CO2 is good. Even nuclear energy. But if UK’s top advisors don’t like modern industrial capitalism and want to transform society in accordance with their moral vision, they should state their aims explicitly instead of blocking realistic solutions to reduce CO2 emissions by pushing their preferred feel-good non-solutions.