Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

18 Comments

  1. Rod – this is a brilliant post/essay. As I was reading it I was hearing your voice speaking it – I think you should do a video to post so that we can hear your voice and your passion for real. You need to do this speech in front of audiences. Wow is all I can say.

    All – you may not be aware of this yet. Yesterday as I was replying to a post on Falls Church News-Press I discovered that Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, author of The Nuclear Energy Option, died on March 17, 2012. I don’t remember seeing this before. But he will be missed.

  2. Bravo, this posting sums up my perspective very eloquently, I guess that is why I like it so much. I find myself in conversation with concerned environmentalist types, and that being extremely gentle with them is the only way to further conversation, making sure they know we have a common goal of protecting our environment and bringing progress to all humanity. Knowing that it will take some time for them to perceive reality slightly different from what they are used to is hard to swallow, but they will come around, all it takes is a small seed.

  3. This article is a continuation of the ‘month long thing between Anna Rose and Nick Minchin’ about climate change.

    Yet nuclear energy is never addressed by Anna. This is typical of climate change advocates that really don’t understand much about nuclear. And Nick is not too much and could easily realize that all the energy supplied by coal could be replaced by nuclear.

    A sad and and painful long story.

  4. I think Bjorn Lomborg has a very educated and tempered response to climate change, but I disagree with him that spending $100 billion a year is necessary to find the next big thing in energy. We know by virtue of E=mc^2 that the densest form of energy easy enough to access is fission (and fusion too but that’s another conversation). We also know the dirtiest form of energy is coal and one of the most widely used. My simple plan would be to spend $100 billion a year on a concerted campaign to eradicate coal power with new fission plants.

    That may not seem like enough or fast enough, but if costs were inline with what they should be, that could be 20 new nuclear plants per year. 100 in 5 years. 600 in 30. No, it still wouldn’t be enough but might be enough to get coal substantially reduced in some corners of the globe.

  5. I have communicated with Anna on a few occasions (including sending her the links to Rod’s articles). She is not pro-nuclear. I do not know if she has reconsidered as a result of her recent video effort.

  6. Being pro climate and anti nuclear is not unlike being pro life and for the death penalty. A sad twist of the mental process.

      1. Of course, having the state coming murder is a sign of evolution. I won’t address women’s right to chose. That in your view would be the state’s affair again, won’t it ?

  7. I agree completely Rod. There’s no need for us to sacrifice our living standards. Things are bad enough with inflation and environmental damage. If you left anything out I’d say it was to elaborate more on the topic of your title. I have noticed more pronuclear advocates are recognizing that discussing the serious damage of the fossil fuels to the air and the oceans is plenty of reason to justify support for nuclear. The concept of climate change or global warming is too easy for the anti nukes to criticize. What can they say about the acid in the ocean or the soot in the air. They are easy to prove and would be greatly reduced by replacing coal and other fossil fuels with nuclear energy.

  8. Well one way to help with climate change is with population control and family planning but around there that goes over about as well a plutonium balloon.

    1. @Bob Conner – you’re correct about it being an unpopular approach. There is good reason; most of us believe that decisions about family sizes are some of the most personal free choices that anyone can make. It is no one else’s business how many children my wife and I choose to have.

      For the record, we decided that 2 was the right number for us, but I have tremendous admiration for some of my friends who made the choice to build families as large as 11.

      I do believe that the data will support an assertion that the very best way to slow the overall growth in human population is to develop a comfortable technologically based society with excellent educational opportunities for all (especially women) and reasonably predictable social benefits like pensions, long term disability and medical care. When those features are a part of a country’s fabric, population tends to stabilize.

      Raising children to be productive members of society is not easy or cheap. It is an investment in the future by people whom, for good reasons, do not believe that we are approaching the end to life on earth.

      1. The higher the standard of living, the less children one has. More energy, higher standard of living, less population….

        1. Daniel, if that is the case then how do we have Rods friend with 11 kids and the Duggars? And think of all the Kindercrap they create.

        2. Are you sure that falling birth rates are the result of greater prosperity, rather than increasing urbanization? Children are assets on a farm, but liabilities in a city…

  9. @Bob ______ – you’re correct about it being an unpopular approach. There is good reason; most of us believe that decisions about family sizes are some of the most personal free choices that anyone can make. It is no one else’s business how many children my wife and I choose to have.

    But Rod, it IS our business becuase making your family larger contributes to climate change. Take for example the pacific gyre of garbage in the ocean. Your wife probably used Pampers with lots of plastic and guess what, its part of the ocean. Also, kids ask for everything they see and being a nice daddy you bought what they wanted and the next thing you know your inside of the house is furnished by Fisher Price and the outside by Playskool. A lot of the garbage gyre is kindercrap.

    For the record, we decided that 2 was the right number for us, but I have tremendous admiration for some of my friends who made the choice to build families as large as 11. I’m sure Playskool made a lot of money off of them and Earth is worse off for it.

    I do believe that the data will support an assertion that the very best way to slow the overall growth in human population is to develop a comfortable technologically based society with excellent educational opportunities for all (especially women) and reasonably predictable social benefits like pensions, long term disability and medical care. When those features are a part of a country’s fabric, population tends to stabilize.

    Sounds like the US so why are you and your friends reproducing?

    Raising children to be productive members of society is not easy or cheap. It is an investment in the future by people whom, for good reasons, do not believe that we are approaching the end to life on earth.
    But by using all the oil to create kindercrap you take away energy for future generations. How does that make any sense?