Blatant Reality

I never thought I would be saying this, but I agree with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore’s position on nuclear energy.

“The fact is that nuclear energy is already one of the two technologies that is resulting in the most carbon dioxide reductions than anything else,” he said. The other was hydroelectric energy.

 

“I find it logically inconsistent for people in the environmental movement who say that climate change threatens the very existence of our civilisation, and threatens to drive millions of species into extinction, and then they are opposed to one of the most important technologies that could bring about a resolution to that problem – replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy,” he reiterated.

Even though I don’t agree with the whole idea that global warming “threatens the very existence of our civili[z]ation,” I do agree that it is completely illogical of environmental groups that support this dire view not to go with the nuclear option. Theoretically, if fossil fuels are going to kill us in under 100 years, nuclear energy is the only thing that we currently have on the table that would greatly reduce our emissions in time to save us. All the other “clean energy” ideas like wind or solar power rely to much on outside factors and aren’t efficient enough. Thats why nuclear energy is so great, it isn’t reliant on any outside factors (other than legislation) and can be placed almost anywhere.