People that write headlines continue to give journalism a bad name. Of course, their jobs are different – journalists really do feel a professional obligation to provide balanced stories that attempt to inform their readers; headline writers want to attract people to a story so that they will read it. One profession needs space to handle a complex topic, the other only wants enough space in a prominent location to shout out a pithy phrase.
One of my news sources recently published this headline:
Cameron considers abandoning Tory support for nuclear power
If you are tuned into to British politics, you will recognize that headline as one of those “Man bites dog” headlines since Cameron is a Tory and the Tories have been in favor of nuclear power for a number of years.
When I read the story below the headline, however, what I found was that the Tories had commissioned a study of energy choices that will look at all potential energy sources. Mr. Cameron specifically stated:
He said: “We should be asking ourselves: how can we guarantee a security of supply, have a challenging target for reducing carbon, make sure we have a balanced and sensible approach to energy in this country – and ask ourselves whether nuclear is going to be part of that mix. Let’s do the work first, and not have pre-conceived notions.”
I applaud that as the going in argument, but I have already been on that journey. During the last 25 years I have sought opportunities for learning everything I could about potential energy sources, using both book study and actual experience. I look forward to hearing if the Tory commissioned study reaches a similar conclusion to mine.
If you want energy security and reduced carbon, not to mention predictable prices, reduced mercury, reduced sulfur dioxide, reduced nitrogen oxides and reduced fly ash, you will learn to love nuclear power.
