Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, opens a Washington Post op-ed with this admission:
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots.
Now?
Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Nature -- not human activity -- is mainly responsible for climate change. But opposition to nuclear power has made energy more costly. I therefore welcome Moore's change of heart, regardless of his reasons.
I almost referred to Moore's "change of mind," buy anyone who thought of nuclear energy as synonymous with nuclear holocaust cannot be credited with having a mind.
(Thanks to Brainster's Blog for the pointer.)
Related posts:
Climatology
Global Warming: Realities and Benefits
Words of Caution for the Cautious
Scientists in a Snit
Another Blow to Climatology?
Bad News for Politically Correct Science
Another Blow to Chicken-Little Science
Bad News for Enviro-nuts
The Hockey Stick Is Broken
Science in Politics, Politics in Science
Global Warming and Life
Words of Caution for Scientific Dogmatists
Hurricanes and Global Warming
Global Warming and the Liberal Agenda
Debunking "Scientific Objectivity"
Hurricanes and Glaciers
Remember the "Little Ice Age"?
Science's Anti-Scientific Bent
