The Nuclear Option to Climate Change

by Robert S. Siegel for Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics, December 11, 2009

Monday I wrote an article that has broken this blog’s record for comments; ClimateGate, Copenhagen, and the only two questions that really matter. The two questions that I ask are;
1. What if global warming is real?
2. What if global warming is nothing but a great con-job being played on a gullible world population?

It is my very strong belief that the answer to both of these questions is Alternative Energy. Alternative energy is a national security imperative, it will help to clean up our air, land, and water, and if there is a human induced climate issue it will help alleviate that issue. Alternative energy development via free markets offers the greatest economic opportunity this planet has ever seen – if we are willing to create an even playing field for alternative energy.

Forget ClimeGate and global warming. Alternative Energy still makes sense.

That free market thing is a tough issue. Oil and coal interests have very powerful lobbies here in the U.S. and huge influence throughout the world. So do the automakers, utility companies and other customers of traditional carbon energy. As I pointed out several times, we bailed out GM which does not yet market an all electric car (yeah, I know GM electrics are coming but they are not here) meanwhile a few folks have pulled together the electric Wheego. I rode in the Wheego. It is decent car and I want these entrepreneurs to succeed along with others like them, because the success of Evehicles is a matter of national security, a clean environment, and just maybe the climate. Yet we bailed out GM and Obama is going to go to Copenhagen and Congress wants to create a ponzi scheme called cap and trade. We gave carbon interests sweet heart land deals (yes, in fairness we also burden them with plenty of regulations) and block the import of Brazilian biofuels. When I write about free markets I mean free markets. Our nation has some work to do in this area.

Commenter Warren asked (in the comments section of the ClimateGate, Copenhagen…) if my support for alternative energy includes support of nuclear power. I responded that I do support nuclear power, however, I was not quite clear with a caveat I made. I wrote that the power of government is needed “due to security issues.” I stand by that but I need to add more detail; nuclear power, nuclear fuel, and nuclear waste are dangerous. This stuff can be stolen by terrorists. Further, mismanagement of a nuclear facility can be disastrous. The force of government can provide the national security apparatus to protect these installations, plus the dis-incentives to enforce safety over decisions based on money and convenience. I dislike offering up government involvement but if (I know, I am dreaming here) We the People actually insist on good and efficient government, the government can be utilized to, and limited to, protect the health and welfare, and nothing else.

Commentor HighPlanesDrifter cited several users of nuclear power that have done it without problems; the U.S. Navy, France, and Japan. I am not familiar with the controls in place in Japan, but I know that the Navy and the French maintain decent control of their plants and materials and yet there are still problems; unaccounted for waste; etc.

HighPlanes and Rafi– you make some good points. Chill with the name calling. This is far too important an issue! Please read number 9 of my Principles of Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics. HighPlanes, Rafi, and all my other readers; the quality of thinking and debate we had on this issue (with the exception of some nastiness in there) needs to spread and replace the name calling and spewing that has infected our national debate. It is only through thoughtful debate that we can cause people to THINK and only through reason can we change minds. If you spew anger and call names your opponent will dig into their position, not consider your valid points.

Commentor Lynn asked, “Is it just possible that some misguided scientists falsified their evidence, but the rest of the evidence still points to global warming?” This is of course a possibility (and that it is a possibility makes the actions of the scientists involved that much more reprehensible). I have seen shrinking glaciers in person and viewed enough footage and read enough accounts of melting ice to know that ice is melting. History suggests that these changes are merely cyclical. However, basic science suggests that humans are adding enough atmospheric carbon to mess with mother nature’s cycles. It is not at all illogical to see human carbon output as interfering.

Hence the two questions at the beginning of this post and my original post.
1. What if global warming is real?
2. What if global warming is nothing but a great con-job being played on a gullible world population?

Lynn also notes that; “Nevertheless, most people who are trying to reduce CO2 concede that natural gas and nuclear power are among the options to be used.” I read this to say that she supports the wise use of nuclear power. I also agree that many, if not most people, that are concerned with global warming also support nuclear power. There are extremists that intend to fight nuclear power and others that intend to fight wind turbines and solar arrays, nuclear, and natural gas. That is why we, meaning those of us at this site, need to argue rationally. We need to make people understand that a strong economy, which is powered by energy, is essential to everything from our way of life to our ability to do good things and help the less fortunate people in our nation and throughout the world. Donations of food, clothing, medicine, education, etc, come from wealth.

Folks, there is a simple economics and historical principle at work in this debate; the human population has grown thanks to economic growth. It is through a powerful economy that food, sanitation, and medicine have risen to the levels they are at today. Those levels support the earth’s population. We need energy to power that economy to maintain those levels of food, sanitation, and medicine or we can’t sustain the population levels. (Yes, I know that some extremists would prefer not to sustain current population levels and when they support that with their own lives I’ll take them seriously but until then they are crackpots that want others to pay for their beliefs). Where nuclear power is concerned, we need to secure that energy (see Iran, Iraq, North Korea, al Qaeda). As Lynn states, “It wouldn’t be beneficial to reduce CO2 only to have several disasters that make large swaths of the country unlivable.”

We can have safe nuclear power, natural gas, and use drill here drill now as the bridge to the era of alternative energy. To do this will take free markets, with limited government to ensure basic safety. It means getting government out of supporting the current energy industry and its customers so that we have a level playing field.

I apologize for the long rant. Someone once said, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one.”