Really good arguments against nuclear power? Well... I haven't heard any yet!
The issue of nuclear power has exploded back on the political table in Britain, like never before. Everyone seems to agree that the UK desperately needs to find a way to secure our future enrgy supplies - and at the same time, commit Britain to the strict Kyoto Protocol programme of global-decarbonisation.However, this debate in Britain is effectively being run soley by anti-science/nuclear environmentalist organisations like the Sustainable Development Commission - yeah right, who are they? When it comes to the issue of nuclear power, it is these people who have had all the running. Backed, and funded by New Labour, and supported by nearly every other Green party/organisations throughout the country.
Who knows, there might really be a decent argument out there for opposing the development of nuclear energy and science - but I have not heard a decent one yet. All I've heard is scaremongering of the highest order, from an un-elected quango, who actively seek to deny our society even the mearest possibilty of developing nuclear science for such things as medicine, or for transport, and of course, as a source of energy.
If you ask me, I think the SDC is suffering from a mild dose of radiation sickness. How else can you explain their statement that 'a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers'? The wrong signal? Ahh... you mean we might get the foolish idea that state-of-the-art nuclear power stations, up and down the country, will stop us believing that we have to consume less energy - when, in fact, we'll be able to buy even more energy than ever before, and for less money as well - instead of being brainwashed into believing that we should make do with a lot less energy.
The SDC are deep down dishonest, why don't they just come out with it, and openly say they despise most new technologies, especially nuclear, they don't trust ordinary people, and they think the skies going to collaspe on their heads.
posted by Courtney Hamilton @ 12:56 PM
7 Comments:
Very true. Frankly, I find it hard to take environmentalists seriously if they oppose nuclear power. That is not to say that we can’t tap “green” energy sources, but when placed next to its alternatives, nuclear power is both safe and “clean”.
The power and self-sustainability that we are turning our backs on by not using nuclear power, is simply ridiculous.
A few enlightened environmentalists have come out in support of nuclear science, but, most environmentalists have spent so much time bashing nuclear technology, they can no longer bare the idea of supporting it, even if it is safe and 'clean' - this kind of environmentalism is like a form of modern irrationalism.
It's blatantly obvious that nuclear power and science has untold potential to generate clean power for us all in the future, but, ecologists would rather see Britain, and the surrounding coast-line covered in thousands of electricity generating windmills. They seem to have forgotten that wind power is something we stopped having to rely on over a hundred years ago.
CLR James and Ayn Rand?
Buh-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!
CLR James is a first-class historian, and, of course, a Marxist like myself.
I'm also an anti-environmentalist and anti-animal rights. I think the Ayn Rand Institute has some of the best anti-environmentalists writers and theorists in the Western world - that's why I linked them on this blog.
Anyway, thanks for the comment - but, to be honest, I did think you'd have something of real substance to say, but what you did say was quite funny - coming from you that is.
Best wishes.
Courtney
You need help, young man. Putting Ayn Rand and CLR James together is like putting Adam Smith and Karl Marx together. Why not drop the pretensions to Marxism, anyhow. Some day you might be angling to find a high-paying job just like all the other Furedi-ite yuppies and that might get in the way.
Well... your right about one thing, I am, unashamedly, 'angling to find a high-paying job', but, aren't we all? You surely couldn't have any reservations about the idea that individuals should strive to 'raise' their standards of living, could you?
Being a professor of sociology, and the head of sociology at the University of Kent, sounds like a fairly decent aspiration to me. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to aspire more for their lives, or to try and find a 'high-paying' job.
As for your point about Ayn Rand, I think I'll leave the last words to the Marxist historian, revolutionary thinker and political activist CLR James, from his seminal essay 'The Making of the Caribbean People', who wrote ‘I denounce European colonialism - But I respect the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation'.
I think that CLR James was referring to Shakespeare and Beethoven, not some trashy pop novelist whose ideas can be reduced to the idea that greed is good. Btw, you are only embarrassing yourself by putting positive references to Ayn Rand on your website. The only people in NY who would be caught dead with her novels under the army probably read an average of one book every 2 years. If it isn't Ayn Rand, it will be Tom Clancy.
Post a Comment
<< Home