Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Damning with faint praise
The only thing guys like Tierney see in global warming is an chance to push nukes and spank the nasty anti-nuke liberals--ignoring (if he even has the slightest idea about) the massive amounts of CO2 released in the construction of the plants and the mining, milling, and enrichment of the fuel. Many months ago, Dr. Nathan Lewis of CalTech said that we would have to build a nuke every two days for the next 50 years if we were to try to use nuclear energy to replace fossil energy. We're many hundreds of nuke plants behind then, so perhaps renewables and conservation _are_ the more important topics. Sorry, the whole thing is behind the NYTimes pay wall.
Gore Pulls His Punches
By JOHN TIERNEY
If Al Gore's new movie weren't titled "An Inconvenient Truth," I wouldn't have quite so many problems with it.
. . .
Gore isn't exactly likable in the film — he still has that wooden preachiness and is especially hard to watch when he tries to be funny. Yet you end up admiring him for his nerdly persistence. He turned out to be right about something important: global warming is a problem worth worrying about.
But the story he tells in the movie is hardly "an inconvenient truth." It's not really true, and it's certainly not inconvenient for him or his audience.
. . .
Gore shows the obligatory pictures of windmills and other alternative sources of energy. But he ignores nuclear power plants, which don't spew carbon dioxide and currently produce far more electricity than all ecologically fashionable sources combined.
A few environmentalists, like Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, have recognized that their movement is making a mistake in continuing to demonize nuclear power. Balanced against the risks of global warming, nukes suddenly look good — or at least deserve to be considered rationally. Gore had a rare chance to reshape the debate, because a documentary about global warming attracts just the sort of person who marches in anti-nuke demonstrations.