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Your email address will not be published.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:

9 Comments

  1. For anyone interested, here is video of Michael Shellenberger announcing his candidacy alongside of Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy, during a NYT hosted panel discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHrBI1Iz_7c

    Since first discovering Michael’s work from his appearance in the film Pandora’s Promise and subsequent debate opposite Ralph Nader on CNN crossfire, I’ve never gotten tired of him beating back the anti-nuclear talking points.

  2. I hope the California voters have the good sense to appreciate his fresh honesty as much as we do.

    And I hope they get to see it. Monied interests seem to have the ability to keep those with opposing views out of the media.

  3. I am a registered voter in California. While I respect Mr. Shellenberger’s reconsideration of nuclear power, I would hope he would also reconsider his other Left-wing positions. His sensible position on nuclear power may make him a lesser of two or more evils. But when all the likely candidates are so evil that their differences are insignificant relative to their evils, I will refrain from voting in that election and confine myself to the ballot initiatives (even though a judge can invalidate them).

    Frankly, the state is approaching dysfunctional third-world status.

    1. I suspect that you would agree that honest folk may disagree on issues because of differences in goals or differences in philosophy or honest difference in what result they think they’ll get from some actions.

      At least, with Shellenberger, you can be pretty sure that any differences you have wiht him are because you two have some *honest* differences.

      In the case of other politicians, I’m almost always left wondering how they’re profiting from the actions that seem mistaken to me.. For example I oppose the… forget the name, program to let visiting foreign kids stay in the USA. I oppose it because Apple and Microsoft are strongly behind it and they are strongly behind it because it is a benefit they can throw at the huge H1B population of workers they have brought to this country to replace USA citizens in good technical jobs, while constantly lying and claiming that there is a shortage of USA technical workers.

      That whole situation leads up to this hope program or whatever it is called, so I oppose it, because at its root are a bunch of corrupt liars, destroying a part of the US middle class and profiting from it.

      If Shellenberger differed from me on that issue and if I lived in CA, that would not stop me from voting for him, because I would assume he reached his opinion out of a sense of fairness to the children involved, not from a desire to personally profit from a corrupt practice that tells US citizens that there is a shortage of technical workers and then does everything it can to make sure that no American fills one of those jobs.

      1. The program you refer to is DACA. Shellenberger’s website does not indicate his positions on issues other than nuclear power. However, I have reason to suspect that he favors DACA which is a demographic time bomb. He may have arrived at his (admittedly suspected) support for DACA out of concern for the children but he needs to be concerned with the VOTERS. What makes anyone think that if DACA is enacted into law, there won’t be more “children” coming across the border for the same consideration? Where will it end? What does Shellenberg think happens to the carbon footprint of someone who moves from Mexico to the US?

        Believe it or not, there are issues even more important thsn nuclear power.

      2. My point, which I may not have made very well, is that with an honest “opponent” you stand some chance of bringing him or her around to your way of thinking. You might change his mind about what his goals should be, or about the reality of how things work in the real world, or about the best way to define or balance fairness.

        With a corrupt, profiteering opponent, you can not change his mind, because he will continue to engage in the policies that pay off, no matter the consequences for you or the rest of society. Even if you convince him (hypothetical corrupt politician) that his course of action is catastrophic for society, he still won’t change, because he’s a corrupt bastard and he’s either going to lie to himself or he just doesn’t care as long as he’s got his.

        Hence, you’re better off with an honest Shellenberger than you are with a corrupt anyone else, no matter what they claim their positions are.

        Finally, I’m not sure that any issues are more important than nuclear power. Civilized society does not function without sources of energy that are not based on muscle power and the only practical non-muscle power source of energy is nuclear (except for the few places with an abundance of hydro). We are currently on a course that either kills millions of people with pollution, or leads to abandoning civilization and retreating to a third-world existence (except for the corrupt fat-cats, of course).

        With nuclear power, the structure of money flows in society also changes, possibly relieving some of the influence pressure that is driving us towards a new feudalism. And make no mistake, the forces trying to bring in unlimited cheap labor are forces who believe they deserve to be on top of a new feudalism, whether those forces actually visualize it in those terms or not.

    2. I find it interesting that in the 80’s Reagan was POTUS and the testing of the IFR was being implemented under his tenure. The research of further Nuclear programs ended when the Democrats took over in the 90’s. And as you say if California doesn’t change course it will eventually sink.