Posted on 04/16/2006 2:23:48 PM PDT by SK85
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If France can do it, why can't we?
They've been way, way, way ahead of the game in that department.
No Scrappleface? No Onion? This is a joke, right? Talk about strange bedfellows! This is tantamount to Satan walking down the aisle and getting saved.
This is a liberal who was mugged by reality.
Here's an important link for folks who want more info on nuclear energy...
http://www.nucleartourist.com/
Well, now that Greenpeace approves, I guess we can move ahead. Just a little 30-year delay. Does this mean that press coverage starts to become favorable now?
Although I agree with the author about nuke energy....this turnaround is all about the global warming agenda.
Not bad. Better thirty years ago, though....
So, let's make a deal. How many nuclear plants would it take to shut them up about global warming?
"Thirty years on, my views have changed....."
Well............DAAAAAHHHH!
That's what happens to tree huggers when they don't get the facts in first place.
Same goes for the Yucca Mountain crowd!
I like nuclear power because I feel it might in some way enable us to stick it to OPEC. I would rather drive a car with a long extension cord than pay jizya to the Wahhabis and Iranian shia.
They've been way, way, way ahead of the game in that department.
France has 35 nuclear plants. the US has 105 nuclear plants. We are a much larger country.
We need nuclear power, but nothing will be licensed or built until the trend-following sheep are persuaded that nuclear power has been approved by the opinion leaders they blindly follow. No liberal politician will climb on board until the environmental movement gives him permission.
It's only about 20 years too late. Dear Jane Fonda, who lent her image to the North Vietnamese at a key point in time, lent her image to the movement to end nuclear power plant construction. Three-Mile Island, followed up by this movie might be said to mark a decisive moment in leftist opinion manipulation:
LOL! A conversion experience! Congrats to you, and I hope we don't have to do Intervention on him! (Stuff a copy of the NYT in his mouth until he can't stand the taste of that garbage anymore?)
We have 105 nuclear plants, maybe, but they are all getting old. It's been a long time since the last one was built. Several were torn down after being built, in fact, because of political pressure.
We started out well, and pioneered nuclear power, but then we caved in to the environmentalists and the fear mongers.
Nuclear Power is exactly where we need to expand, and quickly, it would spur all other alternate (as in other than Oil) fuel development technologies and is compatible with existing distribution infrastructure.
TT
I agree. But we'd probably be up to our eyeballs in innards if we did that - Yuck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.