Changing Attitudes
In a recent Gallup poll, 55% of Americans favor the advancement of nuclear energy. Even Grist, a “media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future” writes about that in an article linked here. While Grist states the historical dangers of nuclear energy, which I rebuke in my article Proof of Political Posturing, they also admit a significant deficiency of power will result under the USA’s renewable energy program. The story claims, irrespective of the number of renewable sources deployed, a shortage of 200 gigawatts of nuclear power will be required. This is, they claim, enough to power 160 million homes, which is ironic since there are only about 142 million homes currently in the nation.
Irrespective of the ambiguity in numbers, the fact remains that the progressive left is acceding to the fact that renewable energies can never be sufficient, not even close, to furnishing the power requirements of the nation or the world. Climate change dissenters have long advocated for nuclear energy, both as an appeasement to the climate fanatics and an acknowledgment of renewable inadequacy. It would seem some are beginning to perceive reality.
Republicans support nuclear energy by 62%, while Democrat support sits at 46%. The linked story states, “The support from Republicans is likely driven by “a focus on energy independence, supporting innovation, supporting American leadership globally, and supporting American competition with folks like China and Russia specifically in terms of the nuclear space,” said Ryan Norman, senior policy advisor at the center-left think tank Third Way.
While that is quite a statement, undeniable by most, yet it was made by a left-leaning political group. The article can only admonish nuclear energy with heightened historical dangers and “the toxic waste that place disproportionate burdens on Indigenous communities”. While that statement makes it sound like the occurrence has happened continuously, only one such case ever happened.
As always, I endorse the testing and use of thorium over uranium as the power source since the former cannot be melted down to produce plutonium, and thus, unlike uranium, it cannot be weaponized.
In another article in Phys.Org entitled, “World near positive 'tipping point' on climate solutions: expert”, one would think that an advocate climate professional believes that we are close to solving the CO2 crisis, but such is not the case. The article is a question-and-answer piece involving the paper and Jonathan Foley an environmental scientist, writer, and speaker. I could not find Foley’s educational biography or any documentation showing he was a climatologist or climate scientist. While it’s speculation, Foley may have gravitated towards climate change, because that is where most of the positions are and certainly the money is.
The article begins with, “With climate-enhanced droughts, heatwaves and fires ravaging three continents and the threat of a new surge in global warming, the world urgently needs to ramp-up solutions for slashing carbon pollution”. Granted if I remove Antarctica, which has no trees or shrubs, there remain three other continents NOT being ravaged by GLOBAL warming.
In the southernmost continent, Antarctic hair grass and Antarctic pearlwort, are found on the South Orkney Islands, the South Shetland Islands, and along the western Antarctic Peninsula, but I doubt they readily burn, yet interestingly new studies indicate forests may have covered parts of the continent.
Interesting though was Foley’s sentiment on government. He seems to think governments are “in bed” with fossil fuel companies and that “the climate crisis will be changed in culture and business and technology, not politics. Governments aren't leading, not at all. At best, they're followers. In this matter, and unlike many in the climate change advocacy Foley may not be a politically progressive or a socialist.
He is correct though in asserting that the mainstream media are simply alarmists. The article concludes with Foley stating, “Mainstream media is doing more harm than good in some cases by promoting more fear and anxiety, leading to disengagement and inaction. This feeds a terrible feedback loop in our broken politics and activist cultures. We need a better, more balanced conversation on how climate solutions can benefit communities around the world.”
I’m confident Mr. Foley’s proclamation of “balanced conversation” did not translate to a bona fide equilibrium which would include opposing research and views by refuting climate scientists, climatologists, physicists, and climate realists.