George Monbiot, a longtime critic of nuclear power, recently made a statement that was almost a ringing endorsement considering the source.
On August 5, 2008, he published an article titled The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal in The Guardian. Here is a quote from that article:
I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen – as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be.
By my way of accounting, we can meet most of the requirements now with the cost numbers to be refined as we gain experience in building the new generation of plants. (I am not sure that Monbiot realizes just how successful WIPP has proven to be at isolating large volumes of residues. It would take just a couple strokes of a few pens to make it accessible for whatever is left over from a good used fuel recycling programs.)
Is it possible that Arctic warming could be causing “hell to freeze over” and changing the long held positions of firm anti-nukes?
Update: You really need to read this Monbiot column – Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense