Climate Consensus people say we must “follow the science” Sure. But they don’t themselves follow the science.
Take the nuclear issue. It’s the safest and most reliable form of carbon-free energy. That’s the science.But happen a Fukushima, they panic, and Germany decides precipitately to close down its existing nuclear stations. France is planning to do the same.
It’s madness.
It’s not science. It's delusion.
Here’s a story of Sweden doing the right thing. One of the few countries in the world doing so. Wind, Solar AND nuclear.
Australia could have been there: with lowest CO2 emissions in the world. Instead we forewent it and now have the highest CO2 emissions per capita, in the world.
A couple of money shots about the book, A Bright Future, by Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist.
What fires up the authors perhaps more than anything else are the safety claims targeted at nuclear power: “Radiation rarely kills anyone, but fear of radiation kills a lot of people.” In response to claims that nuclear power is dangerous, they demand that people ask: “Compared to what?”
They recall that in the Fukushima disaster, 18,000 people died as a result of the tsunami, 1,000 died because of “a botched evacuation”, and literally zero lives were lost because of the nuclear plant meltdown. They say that more than 1 million people a year die or are sickened worldwide by the environmental harm done by burning coal, and ask by what measure nuclear power is dangerous.
They are similarly ruthless with those who say we can solve the climate challenge by changing our lifestyles: “By all means recycle, ride your bike and become a vegetarian, but do not imagine that these actions alone will solve the problem.” Dismissing such action as “feel-good distractions”, they argue that our challenge is not to use less energy, but to use clean energy. With over 1 billion people worldwide still without access to electricity, they say the irresistible pressure is to generate more electricity, not less.