On June 1, I wrote an op-ed expressing the hope that President Obama would use the Gulf spill disaster as a platform to launch a major push toward sustainability (you didn’t read it here because I submitted it first to the New York Times and then to Newsweek, neither of which published it). Last night’s Oval Office speech was definitely a step in the right direction.

Here’s my article on the speech I’d hoped to hear, followed by the relevant portion of what he actually said:

MY ARTICLE:
The Energy Speech Obama Needs to Make—But Won’t

If ever there was a “teachable moment” around energy, the devastation spewing out of BP’s Deepwater Horizon into the Gulf of Mexico is it. The disaster provides an opportunity to move away from unproven technologies whose failure can be catastrophic.

President Obama hinted at this with his recent speech on the Gulf:

More than anything else, this economic and environmental tragedy— and it’s a tragedy—underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment, it will create a new, homegrown, American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.

We’ve talked about doing this for decades, and we’ve made significant strides over the last year when it comes to investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would finally jumpstart a permanent transition to a clean energy economy, and there is currently a plan in the Senate—a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans—that would achieve the same goal.

If nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation. It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. And it’s time to seize that future ourselves. So I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.

This is good, as far as it goes. But unfortunately, cautious soul that he is, President Obama seems incapable of taking this conversation to the much deeper level we need. Here’s the speech I’ve been hoping to hear for over a month:

“Fellow Americans—and fellow citizens of the world. My heart is heavy as I look out over the Gulf of Mexico and watch the cancer of toxic oil slowly wash up on the beaches of our Gulf States. We have had a tragedy…a catastrophe.

“Only too recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked their own devastation on the shores of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.

“And now, just as those communities in the Gulf region were slowly returning to normalcy, their world is once again turned upside down.

“But unlike the disaster of 2005, this calamity was not a force of nature. This catastrophe was caused by human arrogance and the human actions. Untested technologies that were never guaranteed to work at depths of a mile or more…and unproven recovery plans in the event something went wrong…combined to wreak havoc.

“This kind of human hubris, to build first and figure out how to deal with it later, has marred progress far too often. Remember the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic? The nearly catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry, and Enrico Fermi—and Chernobyl? The series of coal mining disasters that have robbed families of their loved ones and breadwinners? And yes, the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

“This crisis blackens our sky and our water. But even as the spilled oil brings literal darkness, there’s one bright spot: the certainty that we must find a different way to power our great factories and offices, our snug homes, and our amazing transportation system. We have the technical knowledge to implement a rapid transition toward safe, renewable, nonpolluting technologies. But until now, we haven’t had the will.

“Following World War II, Europe was a shambles. Buildings had been bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and populations were displaced. Into the void came a beacon of hope: The Marshall Plan—a partnership with Europe to rebuild the devastated continent, even our recent enemies.

“Today, we must once more rise to the challenge. We must turn away from highly centralized, highly dangerous energy collection and generation systems—vulnerable to accidents, terrorists, and to being held hostage by the institutions that control those energy resources.

“Just as we rebuilt Europe, we can create a Marshall-Plan-style push toward true sustainability based on solar, wind, small-scale (non-disruptive) hydro, geothermal, conservation, and other technologies that generate power where it is needed, using methods that don’t pollute, that reduce our carbon footprint, and that can succeed or fail without risking catastrophic systemic and ecological collapse.

“John F. Kennedy brought us to the moon in less than ten years. In the next ten years, we will surpass even that fantastic achievement. Government prime-the-pump investments will create economies of scale and slash prices. Grants, tax incentives and pubic-private partnerships like rent-to-own solar systems and deep-energy retrofits will vastly, rapidly reduce our dependence on polluting, carbon-emitting fossil fuels—by 66 to 90 percent—remove the threat of catastrophic nuclear accidents that could dwarf the spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska. And we will do this while creating tens of thousands of new jobs, and without sacrificing the American way of life. In fact, we will bring the poor out of poverty, at home and around the world.

“For the good of America, for the good of the world, and for the good of each and every one of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the generations yet to be born…I ask you to join with me on charting, once and for all, a sustainable future. Thank you.”

What the President Actually Said Last Night
The president’s remarks were a significant move forward from the mild and infirm rhetoric of two weeks earlier (you can see a video of the whole 17-minute speech here). This is the section of the June 15 speech relating to alternative energy, and I’ve bolded the parts that most echo my draft speech:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future.

The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development -– and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

This is more than I actually expected from Obama. Is it enough? Of course not. Is it a huge step in the right direction? You betcha.

And now it’s up to us, the American people, to make sure he keeps his word on this, and to give him the political support he will need to push these measures through a divided Congress and not be whittled away to practically nothing the way health reform was. And to do so in ways that close the door to technologies we don’t want to see developed. Getting us off fossil fuels doesn’t mean using dirty wood-fired biomass plants, and it doesn’t mean nuclear—a technology potentially far more catastrophic than deep-water offshore oil drilling. It means solar, wind, small-scale (on-intrusive) hydro, geothermal, and of course, conservation.

Let’s get it done!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Recent stories in the New York Times make it clear that Attorney General Eric Holder should be “sharpening his saw” (as Abraham Lincoln said).

BP deliberately chose to use a high-risk sealing method in the days before the blast, and ignored warnings that things were going deeply awry, the paper reports.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

The latest sellout of progressives by the Obama administration is on the energy front. The plan announced in his speech today opens huge areas on the east coast and Alaska (click here for a map).

Even Nancy Pelosi is disgusted.

Here’s an open letter to Barack Obama, which I give permission to be reposted, circulated, reprinted, as long as the attribution remains intact.

President Obama, what happened to the bold young senator who understood that our future is not with fossil fuels, and not with nuclear? Our future, if we are to have a future, is in lowering our carbon footprint far beyond the puny standards you set out in Copenhagen, to the shock of a whole world willing to go much deeper. Our future is not in any way reliant on nuclear power…but it is very much aligned with protecting our environmental heritage, something to which you’ve dealt yet another crippling blow today.

On issue after issue, you disappoint. You sold us out on health care, on militarism, on controlling Wall Street, and now again you’ve sold us out on yet another energy issue (at least the third one).

President Obama, do NOT take our votes for granted. I wrote months ago that we would “have your” back if you pushed for the progressive agenda, the change you promised to bring. By the same token, we will desert you if you continue to desert us. Do you really want to align yourself with Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill” Palin?

Sometimes, the lesser of evils, is still too evil to support. I do not believe you’re an evil man, but your policies, while not based in the malice and trickery of your predecessor, are getting too evil for me to go along with them.

Shel Horowitz is the primary author (with Jay Levinson) of Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I got a call tonight from a survey company asking me questions about my views on various candidates for Massachusetts Governor, and then about various energy alternatives, and then the obvious real purpose: questions about my views on the large-scale wood-burning biomass projects proposed around the state (including three locations fairly close to me: Russell, Greenfield, and even densely populated Springfield), and a proposed bill to count only solar, wind and hydro as Green projects, excluding nukes and biofuels.

I think this gets an “award” for the most biased survey I’ve ever taken. First, the questioner determined that I was strongly opposed to the biomass plants—which are very bad on carbon footprint, not only from the burning of wood but also the massive deforestation and the huge amount of truck traffic they will generate. Wood is, indeed, a renewable resource. But it sure isn’t a clean one!

Then he asked questions like

  • Would it change your vote if you knew that although the Sierra Club and [I think] the Massachusetts Medical Society support the bill, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and AFL-CIO oppose this bill? [Very clever of them to throw in the environmental groups on the other side; my suspicions were not yet aroused. Later, I Googled and could find no such endorsement from UCS, although their research is cited by another group, here]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that wood-biofuel plants are carbon neutral? [absolutely NOT true!]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that Massachusetts has more forested land now than it did 100 years ago?
  • After these three biased questions that were clearly tilted toward counting me as an opponent of the bill, I stopped the guy and said I thought this was a survey, and not a blatant attempt to feed misinformation to me in an attempt to change my opinion. He said, “hey, I’m just reading the questions!” I said I understood that, but I didn’t appreciate being manipulated like this, and I ended the interview. My caller ID told me he had a 609 area code (New Jersey), incidentally.

    I am totally sure this so-called survey will be used to trumpet the citizens of Massachusetts’ supposed stance in favor of biofuels and against the proposed law. While the law’s definitions could be sharpened, I actually feel that eliminating nuclear power and large-scale wood-burning biomass plants from being counted in the progress toward a Green economy is a GOOD thing. And I’ll be directing my friends who are active in the anti-biofuel campaigns to this blog, so they can see exactly what their opponents are up to—sleazy and easily discredited “surveys” like this.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I just found out today is World Water Day, which you can read about at https://liveearth.org/en/liveearthblog/celebrate-world-water-day.

    Water is something far too many of us take for granted, but I believe it will be one of the most important resource issues of the coming years—something that could actually dwarf oil in importance, over time. After all, we have many options to fuel our appliances, vehicles, factories, schools, and homes, among them solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, magnetism, flywheel power, etc. But without clean water, we die—end of story.

    Water is so important that I devote 28 of the 111 tips in my e-book Painless Green: 111 Tips to Help the Environment, Lower Your Carbon Footprint, Cut Your Budget, and Improve Your Quality of Life-With No Negative Impact on Your Lifestyle to conserving and handling water.

    I’ll give you one of those tips now, because it’s a really easy behavior to change and is one of the biggest residential wastes of water:

    #60. Wet the toothbrush with a small trickle of water, and then turn the water off! Turn it back on to rinse the toothpaste off the brush at the end. A family of four could save hundreds of gallons every month just from this simple trick.

    (You can get all 111 tips for the princely sum of $9.95 US).

    We need to look at our “water finprint” just as hard as we look at our carbon footprint. Start saving today.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Judging by my life this week, the environmental movement is on a growth path:

  • Today, I leave for New York City, where I’ll be speaking tomorrow at the Go Green Expo—I’m speaking at 12:30 and then signing copies of my newest book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green.. Organizers are expecting 8000 people over the course of three days and the speakers roster includes Mariel Hemingway and Ed Begley, Jr. (Friday admission is free to people in business. If you’d like to attend the other two days for $10 instead of $25, use the promotional code NYSPEAKER.)
  • Yesterday, a man from Greece whom I met when we both spoke at a conference in Switzerland got me invited to speak at a conference in Romania. 20 years ago, such a conference would never have happened in that country.
  • Earlier in the week, I received news that a Turkish rights to republish Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green were sold (joining the Italian and audio rights that were already sold)
  • I’m in active negotiation to speak at two other large environmental events expected to attract thousands of people.
  • This is amazing growth for a movement that was still somewhat marginal even as recently as 2003. In 1980, a big environmental event like GoGreenExpo in New York would have been in someplace like the 92nd Street Y or New York University, and would have been expected to attract maybe 2000 people—if they did a really good job on publicity and didn’t charge admission.

    The other thing that’s changed in 20 years is the technology. It’s so much easier to go Green now, and you get a lot more for your money. Design improvements in alternative energy systems, as well as growing demand, have made a difference. It’s a very good time to go Green.

    And if you run a business that’s going Green and want to take full marketing advantage of your commitment, or if you’d like to make your business more green, you really should pick up a copy of the book. It costs less than $15 at some of the online discounters, and you get $2600 worth of extra goodies if you register your purchase at https://guerrillamarketinggoesgreen.com/bonuses

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I’m speaking in NYC Friday 3/19 at GoGreenExpo’s Business Day. Business
    buyers get in free on Friday. If you’d like to attend Saturday and/or
    Sunday, here’s a discount code (gets you into the Architecture Fair
    also): visit https://www.gogreenexpo.com and use promo code NYSPEAKER when registering for tickets.

    My brief speech on Green Marketing is at 12:30, followed immediately by a book signing of Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson). Please say hi if you’re attending.

    Here’s the press release about the expo:

    You’re invited to NYC’s premier eco-friendly event, Go Green Expo, coming to Pier 92 next weekend March 19-21.

    Sponsored by CBS Television and co-located with the Architectural Digest Home Design Show, this year’s Go Green Expo is not to be missed! Go Green Expo invites business leaders, eco-minded consumers and their families to explore the latest in every aspect of green living and sustainable business practices including energy, home and building, transportation, electronics, food, and health & beauty.

    For more information and a full schedule of event, visit https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com and use promo code NYSPEAKER for discounted tickets – only $10 for the weekend and it includes complimentary access to the Architectural Digest Home Design Show! (normally $25)

    Joining the lineup of keynote speakers this year are actress Mariel Hemingway, award-winning actor / director Ed Begley Jr. (presented by Enviro-Energies & Water for Life) and award-winning actor / political activist Matthew Modine. Additional eco-celebrity speakers include nationally-renowned eco-friendly interior designer Robin Wilson, nutritional expert and world-class athlete Bobby Williams, Eco-Sex author Stefanie Iris Weiss, award-winning environmental journalist Dan Shapley, eco-author and -blogger Mindy Pennybacker, eco-fashion designer Linda Loudermilk, and more.

    Go Green Expo offers a multitude of interactive seminars and speaker panels led by industry-leading experts including Watershed Program Director Craig Michaels, Senior V.P. Worldwide of Rainforest Alliance Ana Paula Tavares, eco-business leader David Kistner of Green Apple Cleaners and founder / CEO of Go Green Expo, Bradford Rand. NYSERDA will be hosting a panel discussion discussing Workforce Development Initiatives, Green Jobs Green New York, Green Multifamily Buildings and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems. Other topics will include Success Stories of Eco-Entrepreneurs, Creating an Eco-Logical Home, Younger Generations Going Green, The State of Our Environment, and Eco-Fashion and Lifestyle.

    Key exhibitors include The Home Depot, which will showcase the array of Eco-Options available in its stores, automakers Volkswagen and General Motors, earth-friendly paper goods company Marcal, eco-responsible dental care company Aquafree, sustainable printers Print Responsibly and Linda Loudermilk’s eco-fashion line.

    For more information and a full schedule of the show’s events, please visit
    https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com

    WHERE AND WHEN:
    Pier 92
    Westside Highway at 55th Street
    https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.piers9294.com

    Trade Day:
    Friday, March 19 from 10am – 7pm
    Tickets are complimentary to trade professionals, the press and corporate buyers (please bring business card for admission).

    Open to Public:
    Saturday, March 20 from 10 am – 6 pm
    Sunday, March 21 from 10 am – 5 pm

    $25 for a full-weekend pass—open to both business buyers and consumers—includes complimentary admission to the Architectural Digest Home Design Show located next to Go Green Expo. Use promo code GGENYC for discounted tickets.

    Tickets allow access to the entire exhibit floor as well as all panel and speaker discussions. Go Green Expo tickets at the door or online at https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com

    Looking forward to seeing you at the event!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    In the Great Advertising Debate, branding vs. direct response, I’ve always come down on the side of direct response. Every marketing message (not just ads) should have a call to action, a way of moving the reader/viewer/listener forward.

    With the Internet making it very easy to remove material from its original context and share it, I see a lost opportunity in this spoof ad by an environmental group attacking Royal Bank of Canada for its funding of highly polluting and environmentally destructive oil extraction from Canadian tar sands. Here is this stunning video, as flawlessly produced as anything from Madison Avenue.

    On the original page, the action is clear:

    Email RBC’s CEO Gordon Nixon and ask him to stop financing dirty tar sands oil and start funding a clean energy future.

    But inevitably, there will be versions of this video circulating by e-mail or posted on other websites. All they needed to do was have a slide at the end with the URL to take action. That chance will be lost. People will see this video, with no action step at the end, and they won’t know what to do about it. They’ll be a bit more educated on the issue, but will have no place to channel their new concern.

    Also, the letter text itself is another lost opportunity. Mired in passive language and bureaucratic tone, it takes some doing to extract (pun intentional) the actual message. Yes, there’s the opportunity to edit the letter, but the complete rewrite that’s called for will be too time consuming and most people won’t bother. I confess, I didn’t bother.

    Here’s the first paragraph; tar sands don’t even come up until paragraph 2:

    Amidst an unprecedented transformation in the banking sector, RBC clings to the outdated idea that social responsibility is separate from core banking activities. This letter is to encourage you to update its social and environmental practices to meet modern standards.

    This was probably a deliberate choice, to talk to a banker in banker’s language. But I think it’s a wrong choice. I’d have gone for a much more direct lead, like

    RBC’s continued funding of environmentally devastating tar sands oil extraction is not acceptable to stakeholders, and won’t be acceptable in the courts.

    I’m going to use the email contact on their website to send these suggestions, so the page may have been fixed by the time you see it. If so, more power to them. I think Rainforest Action Network does great work, and my goal is to educate, not to embarrass. I’m dong it publicly because I see many worthwhile messages and opportunities similarly lost in the inability to step out of the branding mindset. Next time you send out a political action message, I hope your call to action will be clear and thoroughly integrated.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Some good news on page one of my morning paper: In Vermont, the only state that gives the legislature a voice in nuclear plant licensing, the state Senate has rebuffed an attempt by Vermont Yankee to relicense the aging and long-troubled N-plant for another 20 years, after its license expires in 2012.

    The vote was 26 to 4—not exactly close, and to me, living less than 40 miles from the plant, that big margin provides substantial comfort. The plant’s owner, Entergy, would have to work pretty hard to get a majority.

    All the way back to the 1970s when it was new, Vermont Yankee was named “one of the 10 worst nukes in the country” in No Nukes, by Anna Gyorgy et al (South End Press, p. 106)—a book that I used heavily in researching my own 1980 book on nuclear power and still consider the definitive work on the subject. According to Gyorgy, Vermont Yankee reported 39 “abnormal occurrences” in 1973 alone, and was shut down 17 times during a 19-month period.

    Vermont Yankee was only a year old when it had those 39 incidents. Consider this: Nuclear plants do not age gracefully. The corrosive effects of high-level radiation and a toxic chemical stew, on top of normal aging and fatigue, inevitably lead to severe problems. Parts crack, pipes leak, systems fail—and the public’s health and safety are put at risk.

    And like so many nuclear plants around the world, the plant is located near a border, so that other states share any potential catastrophe. In the far southeast corner of the state, the plant sits on the Connecticut River directly across from New Hampshire, is about three miles north of Massachusetts (a ten-minute bike ride). Activists in these adjoining states have used the slogan, “Radiation without Representation.” (Ask the citizens of Denmark how they feel about the Swedish nuclear power plant directly across the Orsund that threatens their nuclear-free country.)

    Vermont Yankee has continued to be plagued with problems. Recently, to name one among many examples, it’s been spewing huge levels of radioactive tritium into the water—at 130 times the safety standard :

    Since then, the levels of contamination found in some wells has risen dramatically. The federal safety standard for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter, but water from one monitoring well measured nearly 2.6 million picocuries per liter.

    Dr. William E. Irwin, the radiological health chief for the Vermont Department of Health, said Thursday that tritium has not yet been detected in the nearby Connecticut River, but it probably has reached it.

    Not extending the license is indeed a people’s victory. Closing, once and for all, this dangerous plant that should have been shuttered decades ago is long overdue. And President Obama would do well to reconsider his ill-advised push for nukes.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    You’d think, by 2010, with some 50 years of bad experience, that the question of nuclear power’s suitability would have been settled long ago. You’d think that anyone with a lick of sense would have figured out that nuclear power brings with it enormous risks to…

  • Health
  • Safety
  • Environmental contamination
  • Vulnerability to terrorism (and in order to protect against that, major threats to our civil liberties
  • Unreliability
  • Economic disaster (including significant danger of default by utilities on our US government investment)
  • Vast power losses in the course of mining, milling, fuel rod production, transmission, and waste processing (including transportation)–turning the industry, by some accounts, into a net consumer of energy

    Yet President Barack Obama announced $8.33 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia, and projects another $36 billion in the 2011 budget, or enough for seven to 10 reactors.

    Nuclear power is something I know something about. I did a major research project on it in college, and several years later, wrote first a monthly column, and then my first book on it. Yes, the new plants would be a new and better design—but not better enough!

    You cannot convince me that the waste products can be safely isolated from the environment for a quarter of a million years (think—pretty much the oldest human artifacts in existence are only 1/10 as old)…that centralizing so much energy, and the powerful, highly toxic fuels that power these plants, does not present unacceptable risk at the hands of our enemies, who could create a disaster that made 9/11 look like a fender bender…that driving these toxic stews around the country doesn’t present grave risks just from normal everyday road behavior…that these plants with their terrible reliability record, frequent outages, gross safety violations, and multiple complexities of power generation, plumbing, electricity, and computer systems can be expected to solve our energy problem…that the nuclear power system as a whole, with its dirty mining and milling, its very imperfect waste processing, its reliance on transportation of dangerous substances over very long distances is going to significantly lower either our carbon footprint, our emissions, or our power needs.

    Nuclear power is not necessary. It is not sensible. It opens great risks for small returns that can be much more easily achieved in other ways. It is a gift to the terrorists, a robbery from the taxpayers, a diversion of resources away from better and far more proven technologies that could meet all of our energy needs safely, and a serious threat to the well-being of future generations.

    This “plan” must be stopped.

  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail