The Environmental Architects of Fear

Over at Gristmill, the reflexively anti-nuclear David Roberts is upset that environmentalists like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand come out in favor of an expanded use of nuclear energy:

An equally irksome tic is the notion that Brand represents some sort of next-gen environmentalism. There are basically three of these guys, these new nuclear proponents: Brand, Patrick Moore, and James Lovelock. Every story about one of these guys -- and there are plenty -- tries to spin the next-gen angle. Finally environmentalists are letting go of their old ideas, right?

But I don't see anything new here, much less any brave new environmentalism. I see three guys approaching their twilight years, worn down from a lifetime of fighting, making a desperate bet based on fear.

As someone who just saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time a few weeks ago, I had to laugh when I read that last line. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

There's a lot that's just plain wrong elsewhere in what Roberts writes -- remember, this is the same David Roberts who wants to hold a "climate Nuremberg" for folks who deign to disagree with him -- inlcuding the old straw man that nuclear couldn't possibly provide all of the electricity we need.

But as readers of this blog know, the industry position is quite clear: If we want to continue to provide affordable and reliable electricity, nuclear energy needs to be part of a diverse global energy mix going forward. If we do what environmental radicals like Roberts propose and rule nuclear completely out of the equation, constraining emissions of all kinds while continuing to provide reliable and affordable electricity will be that much more difficult, if not impossible.

Luckily, thanks to the Web, Roberts doesn't have the floor to himself. You can listen to Moore, Brand and Lovelock all on your own and decide for yourself who is doing the real fearmongering on the one hand, and who is calling for a rational response on the other.