All over the media for the past several years, I’ve seen claims of environmental groups supporting nuclear energy as an environmental solution and that there is a split in the community. See a recent example yesterday on NPR. In truth, there is no split.
No environmental groups advocate for nuclear energy as an environmental solution. Some environmentalists were investigating whether adding nuclear provisions to an energy and climate bill might secure support for a comprehensive national global warming solution in Congress. Many more believe that gambling on nukes is too risky no matter what.
And, Patrick Moore, the oft-quoted “green” is not an environmentalist. He’s a schill for the nuclear, timber and chemical industries, peddling his status as a former environmentalist to the highest bidder.
We must learn from this tragic moment in Japan and take action to ensure that we never put our families at risk of nuclear catastrophe here in America. More than 108 million Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant. As a frame of reference, Tokyo, which last week had its water system contaminated by radiation from the disaster, is 150 miles from the Fukushima plant.
Rather than wishing away the health, safety and environment consequence by defending the nuclear industry and promoting nuclear power, our leaders should commit to a truly clean energy path – one that prioritizes renewable energy, like wind and solar power, and that provides citizens and businesses with the tools they need to save energy. Nuclear power is too risky and too costly. It is not worth the gamble.
We have barely scratched the surface of the potential to tap the energy of the sun, the wind, and the immense of amount of energy we waste. Committing to an energy future that prioritizes clean renewable energy and energy conservation will put us on a path with less risk, less pollution, and, ultimately, a lower price tag for society.