People’s Climate March: Why Nuclear Advocates Felt Excluded And Chose To Stay Away
On a blisteringly hot April day in Washington, D.C., some people and organizations interested in addressing climate change gathered and marched with signs and chants. Notably, the event excluded the scientists, engineers, clean air advocates, environmentalists and clean energy technologists who recognize that nuclear energy is an important, ultra-low carbon dioxide tool.
Along with groups like Environmental Progress (Please don’t climate march) and individuals like Suzy Hobbs Baker (Why I Won’t March (for Climate)) many effective, active, evidence-influenced people I know chose to do something other than join the People’s Climate March.
Our problem with the march was that its organizers decided to try to include everyone but us under their umbrella, even though some of us spend most of our waking hours working to improve nuclear energy. We know it is far from perfect, but we also know there are many ways to make it an even better tool for reducing carbon dioxide production and hydrocarbon consumption.
That should be the primary focus of a evidence-based movement to address the hazards that might confront us if we continue down our current path of burning ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel. Whatever damage human activity has done to our atmosphere’s ability to protect us and provide a reasonably stable climate comes from our historical efforts to power the things that we need and the things that we want.
Any future damage will come from burning more fossil fuels to cover the developed world’s needs and wants along with additional investments to empower development for the billions of people who don’t have access to – or cannot afford – enough reliable energy to meet basic human needs of food, clean water, shelter and effective sanitation.
Once struggling people around the globe achieve a basic level of prosperity, they will need and want more power. It would be absurd and inhumane to expect they will want to stop at mere subsistence.
As Baker said in her explanatory piece,
And despite working every single day on climate, I am not joining the climate march. That’s because the organizers seem to not care enough about climate to dig into the deep wealth of science on nuclear energy and climate change at all. I’ll say it again: Nuclear has challenges, both technical and social in nature. But if we truly care about climate change, we should be taking reasonable steps to manage nuclear’s challenges — in the same way we must learn to manage challenges posed by vital renewable technologies like wind and solar.
Michael Shellenberger, the Executive Director of Environmental Progress, was more direct and accusing.
If the march organizers get their way, they are going to destroy any chance of dealing with climate change. That’s because they are aggressively working to kill America’s nuclear power plants, which are our largest source of clean energy.
Last year, Environmental Progress and our allies played a critical role in saving nuclear plants in Illinois and New York. We did so by demanding that so-called environmental groups stop killing our largest source of clean energy.
…
In 2011, Bill McKibben of march sponsor 350.org advocated closing Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. He got his way. It was replaced with fossil fuels and carbon emissions rose.
Rhea Suh of NRDC advocates replacing Diablo Canyon and Indian Point, both of which would be replaced by fossil fuels.
Mike Brune of Sierra Club claimed he opposed replacing nuclear with natural gas but in fact supports closing both Diablo Canyon and Indian Point.
Why Do Some Environmental Leaders Align With Fossil Fuel Lobbying Positions?
It would probably stun and confuse some of the Climate March participants to find out that many of the leading lights in their movement reject the emission-free power source that is now openly being targeted by oil and gas lobbying groups like the Ohio division of the American Petroleum Institute, the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association.
It’s easy, from a scientific, technical and economic point of view, to understand why the oil and gas lobby groups see nuclear energy as a threat to their business. They have a natural desire to eliminate a proven competitor in order to increase their sales and their market share.
Once the industry had begun learning how to construct large nuclear plants, it only took the U.S. 20 years to build enough nuclear plants to capture and maintain a 20% share of the U.S. electricity market. Nearly every one of the 99 nuclear plants that have been producing almost 800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity every year for the past 25 years were built between 1970 and 1990.
It isn’t easy, from any rational point of view, to understand why people who loudly claim to be pro-science, pro-evidence, anti-fossil fuel and worried about climate change reject nuclear energy.
It is so illogical, in fact, that the prevalence of antinuclear activism inside the climate movement might be the most common reason why many of the numerous engineers that I know who specialize in energy-related fields like thermodynamics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, control systems and nuclear engineering classify themselves as climate change skeptics.
They believe the evidence of increasing CO2 concentrations and most agree that it is important to take effective action. But, when confronted with an organized movement that rejects their proven prescription, it’s no surprise that they wonder what the Climate Movement is really supposed to accomplish.
Note: A version of the above was first published on Forbes.com. It is reprinted here with permission.
It occurs to me that including nuclear in these marches can be counter productive because of the failure of NE advocates to counter the public’s fear of NE and radiation in general. Even if the concerned citizens organizing these marches are cognizant of the positive contribution NE makes to our environmental health, (and I’m not saying they are or aren’t), the general public doesn’t have the same knowledge. A huge segment of our population doesn’t recognize nuclear energy as a clean energy source, and would find the inclusion of NE in these marches inexplicable and disingenuous. Further, the real issue at this point in time is the deregulation of the fossil fuel sector, and the ramp up of environmentally unsound extraction locales and methods. Rather than an attempt to market energy sources, the focus is, and should be, the attempt to rein in the an especially damaging energy source.
However, on a personal level, I think these marches are like tilting at windmills. This administration couldn’t care less what is best for the people and the environment, no matter how many people take to the streets. We can march until hell freezes over, and these, self serving lying elitist psuedo patriotic leaders will just view our interests, values, welfare, and security, with scorn.
Rod, unfortunately most in the ‘climate change’ advocacy camp are not really interested in saving the environment or producing cheap electricity without emissions. They each have their own cause they are supporting – whether it be socialism, government control, redistribution of wealth, continued research funding, or general discontent with the freedoms and wealth we enjoy as a nation. I know that may sound extreme, but dig into each of the demands of these various groups and you will begin to see the true common cause.
“Rod, unfortunately most in the ‘climate change’ advocacy camp are not really interested in saving the environment or producing cheap electricity without emissions”
The practice of attributing sentiments and motives to large blocs of people, with no collaboration, sourcing or cited studies seems to be the latest fad at Atomic Insights. Making these broad generalizations brings into question the veracity of the assertions made here on a wide range of topics. For a site that supposedly respects science and seeks to offer honest information, it sure seems to have a propensity for inventing arguments that do not cite any supporting evidence.
Sterotyping large blocs of people, without collaboration, is disingenuous. Kinda like, well, junk science.
@Jon Hall
Please remember to distinguish between comments and posts. If you find instances of Atomic Insights – meaning a post or a comment from me – “attributing sentiments and motives to large blocs of people, with no collaboration, sourcing or cited studies” please feel free to complain. Otherwise, please be a bit more focused in your own commentary and aim complaints at the source.
Rod, when you disallow comments that question the sterotyping of large blocs of people, as you’ve done these last three days, it makes you tacitly supportive of that stereotyping. You question the opinions and assertions of commenters here on a regular basis. But you do so very selectively, even when some comments are blatantly and disengenuously biased.
@Jon Hall
The comments that I disallowed were not disallowed because they questioned stereotyping. They were disallowed because they were off topic or needlessly insulting.
“There are things about that march which illustrate why a large fraction of the public (and political spectrum) tend to be skeptical of climate change….”
Collaboration?
“Many people, including most conservatives and even moderates, see this and say to themselves, “this is something that the Hard Left is doing; it’s associated with their agenda”. Most people in the US don’t share many of the Hard Left’s views….”
Collaboration???
“There are a great many people who reject the concept of anthropogenic climate change BECAUSE of the association with the hard left.”
Collaboration???
“….the closest that most had been to science of any sort may have been Jules Verne from a lit class…..”
Collaboration??
http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.”
@Jon Hall
What is your point with the repetition of “collaboration?”
Is a Gallup poll result supposed to have some kind of scientific, technical or behavioral meaning?
The point, Rod, is this thread’s entire reasoning, for some inexplicable reason, seems to be to demean the motives and intent of climate protesters, base on specious claims about “most” of them. In short, its at times a thinly vieled, and at other times, a blatant attack on “the left”. Based on BS, by obviously politically biased persons pretending to offer informed opinion. Some, prone to fantastic and bizarre conspiracy theories, racial animous, and partisan tunnel vision. If you think that belongs on a site that is trying to advocate for ANYTHING, with any credibility, then you might just have found one of the reasons that nuclear advocates are being outshouted by the people spreading FUD.
Jon Hall:
Note that I wrote that from my personal experience, repeated any number of times. I would never claim I took a representative sample, but I’m sure I deal with a lot more right-leaning people than you do.
All you need is a small enough minority to freeze any policy initiatives. The anti-nukes have mostly been a minority in the USA, and so far it looks like they’re going to succeed in killing the industry. Even the “success stories” like New York have well-run plants shutting down under political pressure, and all it took was one Jaczko in the right place to throw the monkey wrench that’s taken Toshiba into bankruptcy.
Maybe Energy For Humanity and Environmental Progress can make enough noise to help counteract them, but any real solution probably requires the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy and the other biggies to repudiate the political agendas of their donors and publicly report just how they were silenced, and by whom. Only a clean break of that magnitude could rescue their reputations.
The intent of my post was to try and explain why many knowledgeable people (including scientists and engineers), who have generally conservative political views, reject global warming outright, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and the near-complete consensus among climate scientists. Note that I do not hold such political views (I would say that I am an independent, slightly left-of-center on balance). So, the post was not meant to describe MY views of “the Left”. It is an attempt to describe what conservatives may be thinking.
My post was also somewhat motivated by my inability to understand why there would be “anti corporate” and LGBTQ sections in a *climate* march. The fact that there were provides evidence for much of what I was saying (i.e., it is evidence that much of the “climate movement” has other political agendas as well).
Am I questioning the motives of all the people at the march (who are clearly concerned about climate)? No. But I am questioning the people (including march organizers) who decided to have those non-global-warming-related sections in the march, and who participated in those unrelated (to climate) activities. They clearly have other agendas.
Proof? Evidence? I just offered a (personal) theory, which attempts to explain why intelligent, conservative people are choosing to dismiss global warming. Didn’t know I had to meet such a high standard in order to post an opinion.
It should be noted that the GW group I’m a part of (CCL) has been making efforts to evaluate the reasons (psychological/political) why so many people, generally on the right side of the political spectrum, are dismissive of climate change. Especially after the lection. Political/tribal affiliations is one of the main theories. That is (as I said in my post), they associate concern about climate change, and the movement to do something about it, with their political opponents (“the Left”), and many of them (conservatives) believe that it is tied to other political agendas (e.g., wealth redistribution).
So, I’m not making this all up (personally). These are ideas that are being discussed by many. When I read about the non-GW-related sections in these marches, the light bulb went on in my head, and I recognized it as a possible example of what these theories were talking about.
“I would never claim I took a representative sample, but I’m sure I deal with a lot more right-leaning people than you do.”
Not sure if the Klan even has meetings around here anymore, EP. But if they do, Bakersfield would certainly fit their needs.
James….
Thank you. Thats the kind of comment that makes an assertion credible.
And BTW, EP, the majority of my clients are wealthy AG and Oil executives. If you think these people are left leaning, you are clueless. But they are certainly concerned about environmental issues, heavily invested in REAL science, and deeply concerned about how they are going to have an economical work force to sow, maintain, and pick their AG products after Trump gets through flushing science, and common sense, down the crapper.
@Jon Hall
Curious: have you had the opportunity to chat with your clients about energy and climate? If so, can you share some of their thoughts about such topics as biomass for power production, renewable fuel mandates (ethanol mostly), and nuclear energy? If they are heavily invested in real science, I’m deeply interested in what they think about the science topics that affect their business interests.
You’re one of the people who’s never opened “The Bell Curve” but you’re certain it’s full of hate for Black people, aren’t you? Because that’s what your Goodthink leaders told you.
I’m afraid that they’ve only given you enough truth to make their lies credible. The same is true on the right. Many of them think I’m as much of a Marxist as you think I’m a Nazi. (By now you might have figured out that I don’t care about labels.)
The truth is… not inside the boxes they’ve created for us. I’ve always thought out of the box, looking for it. Here’s one truth which proves that poverty is not the cause of crime. There are many, many more.
I’m telling you about the garden-variety fed-up-with-liberalism-and-PC right-wingers I come across. I’m telling you what THEY say to ME when I bring up the issue of ACC. You won’t get anywhere with them until you address that point… and yes, they’ve noticed that the LGBTQ and cop-murdering BLM and illegal-immigrant-rights activists are there in the climate change march even though they’ve got no relevance whatsoever.
Do you get the notion that maybe these things are chosen to perpetuate and increase division on the issue? Because this sort of propaganda and symbolism is certainly no accident.
Cui bono?
Rod. Two of my customers are almond growers, very big operations. And being into large orchards, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how they feel about biofuels. Many timed I have seen whole orchards of trees past their prime, fell, oiled, and reduced to chips in huge shredders that eat trees whole. Many acres of mature trees….pfffft….gone, and replaced with saplings in an amazingly rapid turn around. These guys LOVE the biofuels plants.
Another of my customers is the owner of a huge oilfield maintainence company. Has operations in Cal, N. Dak, and Wyo. Have not had deep conversations with him about energy issues. A huge supporter of McCarthy, extremely conservative, and on board with just about any Republican agenda. Except, the casual dismissal of global warming. He’s an avid outdoorsman, global trophy hunter, and that may explain his believe in global warming, and the pressing need to address it. As far as nuclear energy goes, he is noncommittal about it. I get the impression he just hasn’t given it much thought . But, like I say, other than an evening of discussing global warming over dinner, casually, we really haven’t discussed energy issues. He’d rather talk about his latest addition to he 5000 sq fit gameroom. (Building, actually).
It’s easy to see why the oil/gas industry views nuclear as a threat. Something which is less clear, but which the public needs to understand, is why the oil/gas industry does NOT view renewables as a threat. Why they, in fact, actually LIKE renewables. Introduction of subsidized, intermittent renewable generation into the generation market has the effect of causing coal and nuclear baseload plants being replaced by “flexible” natural gas plants (which use their product). This is why the fossil industry is attacking the nuclear supports (in IL, NY, OH and PA), whereas they never attacked far larger market interventions on renewables’ behalf.
Another subtle point. There are things about that march which illustrate why a large fraction of the public (and political spectrum) tend to be skeptical of climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
The linked articles show that, in addition to the anti-nuclear, anti-corporate (??) section, there are other sections of the march devoted to things that have nothing to do with climate change (LGBTQ, workers rights, voting rights, etc….). Basically, the entire package of views/issues that are associated with the Hard Left.
Many people, including most conservatives and even moderates, see this and say to themselves, “this is something that the Hard Left is doing; it’s associated with their agenda”. Most people in the US don’t share many of the Hard Left’s views. And marches like this (with their choice to add in those subjects that have nothing to do with global warming) send the message that you will not be welcome in the “climate movement” unless you accept the entire package of beliefs (of the Left). In other words, the whole concept of doing something about climate change becomes associated with political groups that moderates and conservatives don’t agree with on most issues (other than climate).
The Left is noted to its lack of acceptance of other views. This is unfortunate because it has the effect of turning away people who are genuinely concerned about global warming, because they may not share the Left’s views on other issues. One political philosophy is to the “buy” the support of other political groups by agreeing to support their cause. For example, we’ll join your march if you join ours (the result being an LGBTQ section in a “climate march”.) While you pick up support from various groups, your political tent actually gets smaller because you wind up with this overall movement that is pledged to a whole package of beliefs (and few people actually have that entire set of beliefs).
The opposite approach is that taken by the CItizen’s Climate Lobby (which advocates for a carbon fee and dividend – I’m a member). They keep their agenda extremely narrow (CF&D). While they welcome support from other political groups, they do not sign on to, or officially lend support to, any other political agendas. That allows a wide range of people, with widely varying views on other political issues, and even on issues such as energy, environment, and climate change. (Nuclear power is an excellent example. Many in CCL don’t like nuclear, but still support CF&D. But CCL completely welcomes pro-nukes, and what pro-nuke wouldn’t support CF&D.) If CCL were running that march, you wouldn’t see sections devoted to non-GW-related issues.
BTW, how is nuclear associated with the “anti-corporate” agenda?? Given that it’s those same old utility companies who are building those large-scale wind farms and solar plants?
This. There are a great many people who reject the concept of anthropogenic climate change BECAUSE of the association with the hard left. No amount of evidence that this association came long after the science sways them in the least, and a number of them want to crush climate science as part and parcel of getting rid of the leukophobic, genocidal leftists who are trying to tear civilization down in the name of “anti-racism” and “equality”.
The left, in its public posturing and private sellout, has committed the planet to burning. That is evil.
“The left, in its public posturing and private sellout, has committed the planet to burning. That is evil.”
I don’t know about this one. It seems to me that there are folks that make up the majority of the folks in the US House and the US Senate that could be rather more open minded on this global warming thing. Then there is our President, but you hear enough about him on any news channel. All of these folks could be doing something to solve this real problem. I wonder who is lining their pockets to do otherwise. Maybe, those crazy protesters actually know something.
Maybe, just maybe, the guys who buy advertisements in the periodicals they have been reading over the years have an agenda to exclude Nukes from the acceptable solutions. Have you ever thought how good they’ve gotten with propaganda since the days of Joseph Goebbels? The guys who work at these periodicals want to keep their advertisers. Recently, some companies were dropping ads on Bill O’Reilly’s show and he was gone. Don’t think they don’t have more subtle influences such as keeping folks from seeing positive things about Nukes.
One more tidbit. Just a bit off topic. Richard Nixon helped found the EPA. He was a Republican. Republicans of today are often more to the right of where Tricky Dick was. Maybe, just maybe, the folks who have the money are having a “right pulling” influence on all of us through various propaganda outlets.
I’m not sure they can. The political atmosphere is so toxic that “giving in” on that issue will be treated as betrayal because ALL the policy initiatives to deal with climate change have been authored by Marxists, the right having totally ceded the issue. Until something shocking happens, I see no way to get people to open their minds.
There was a Republican candidate for the presidential nomination in 2012 who campaigned on climate change. His last name started with H. His candidacy sank so fast, you probably won’t be able to remember his name. And if you think the issue was polarizing then, it’s vastly worse now. I can’t even sell nuclear power to right-leaning people because they view burning coal and gas as patriotic or something!
Maybe, just maybe, they paid for the left to go both anti-nuclear and anti-climate change to push the right into reaction (with some help from propaganda on that side too) and ensure gridlock, keeping their markets safe from nuclear power.
The left knew what it was doing. It pushed the Sierra Club away from “Atoms Not Dams”. It’s the guilty side.
Somehow I cannot view the Sierra Club as representing the Hard Left or indeed anything but a form of environmentalism. It is true that the Sierra Club appears to have some form of anti-nuclear still left and I will be writing to the Executive Director about the strong advisability of removing that plank.
But I don’t know that the Sierra Club Climate Marched.
The Sierra Club not only marched but also were part of the Steering Committee.
http://peoplesclimate.org/partners/
Good luck with that. The Sierra Club has proven that they are happy to take huge contributions from big gas (Chesapeake Gas scandal). The evidence (and an anecdotal report from James Hansen) suggests that the management of all the substantial NGOs that claim to be environmental advocates are actually fully captured by the petroleum industry or its surrogates by way of their purse strings.
The idea that the Sierra Club or any other “green” lobby is working for the public good should be abandoned as a fantasy that is long out of date (in many cases it was untrue from their founding).
The damage this is doing to addressing climate change is huge on multiple levels. The casual observer with a little knowledge reads about the science of climate change and the current efforts to mirigate it, knows enough to realize that building wind and solar collectors and opposing nuclear is insane, and decides that the whole topic must be cracked.
They also took a large donation from a hedge fund billionaire to drop their opposition to immigration as a means of holding down population growth.
As Churchill once remarked, “Madam, we already agree on what you are. We are now merely settling on a price.”
@David B. Benson
Have you written to Michael Brune yet about the Sierra Club’s stance on nuclear? According to this page, http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free, the organization “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.” It asserts that the three well known accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima during the first 60 years of nuclear power plant operation prove that “none of the fundamental problems with nuclear power have ever been addressed.”
Not yet. And it may do little good as the Sierra Club policies are set by a board of directors — they don’t appear to be well informed regarding matters nuclear and may not be informable. Nonetheless, I will give it a try, being a Life Member and all.
Climate Marches and political activism are meaningless, until we identify a clear path towards compliance with the Paris Climate Agreement, EPA Clean Power Plan and California AB 32 Emission Mandates: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-11/TN205398_20150719T170914_Kirk_Gothier_Comments_Kirk_Gothier_Comments_on_Climate_Adaptati.pdf.
Unfortunately, the Renewables/Fossil Fuels Industries continue to oppose this strategy, while billions live in poverty and tens of millions die each year from energy poverty and air pollution: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/eia-forecast-fossil-fuels-remain-dominant-through-2040/ https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_01052017.pdf, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/ http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/3-MP-PovertyFacts-E.pdf.
We either start making decisions based on scientific consensus, or continue to rely on some other metric, which will insure smarter species evolve to replace humans: http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/.
“It isn’t easy, from any rational point of view, to understand why people who loudly claim to be pro-science, pro-evidence, anti-fossil fuel and worried about climate change reject nuclear energy.”
Rod,
in case you didn’t know this article already: Some answers
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/
Rod – I was in DC during the ‘March’ and had an opportunity to interface with many of the participants. They were invariably very young and full of fire. My take away was that they were conditioned for this experience and from what I was able to determine, the closest that most had been to science of any sort may have been Jules Verne from a lit class. I was staying at the Willard and had to swim against the tide of marchers just to get back across Pennsylvania Avenue to my hotel. Several marchers attempted to enter the Willard with their signs but were informed that they were welcome but without the signs. A handful of them stacked their gear and came into the Round Robin Bar with the rest of us and never once mentioned anything about their cause. They just enjoyed a nice Mint Julep with the rest of us