Althouse: "Historically, the antinuclear movement didn’t emerge from environmental concerns, which is why arguments for nuclear’s environmental advantages often fall on deaf ears."

I wrote about Sweden's smart energy policy on 20 January. Here.

In Sweden: Nuclear and renewables. Not just wind and solar. That story was in our local South China's Morning Post. 

Now it's in the New York Times and reported by the estimable Ann Althouse, professor of Law emeritus. 

The simple point being this: to halt the worst of climate change needs a massive nuclear program. Renewables alone won't do it. 

We should copy Sweden who has solved it. It's just a case of following best practice. 

Hear, hear. 

I've long argued here that the Greenies halted nuclear in the seventies via a campaign of fearmongering, mainly on the grounds of (i) what to do with nuclear waste, (ii) danger of proliferation to weapons use and (iii) danger of meltdown (see "The China Syndrome" movie of 1979; massively influential in turning otherwise sane people against nuclear. Hanoi Jane has a lot to answer for). All of these are solved but it's cut no ice with the greenies and the left. 

The quote at Ann Althouse places the fear mongering as more to do with the fear of population explosion. And it's true that some extreme greenies are against fusion energy — clean, safe and limitless as it may one day be — precisely because it would remove energy constraints on human population. They would rather Homo sapiens lived in the cold and dark for "the sake of the planet".

Hence the "falling in deaf ears" in the headline. 

I do hope this article and the book it reviews have some impact. Though the headline doesn't offer much hope. 

"My feelings don't care about your facts" might be the motto of the likes of AOC and those pushing the Green New Deal.