Submit your comments on this article | |
Science & Technology | |
Going Nuclear-A Green makes the case | |
2006-04-20 | |
![]() 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. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. 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. Cue the Roger Rabbit graphic. RTWT
| |
Posted by:Ptah |
#4 and a pony |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-20 19:35 |
#3 The governments should make sure regular never goes below $2.50 per gallon inflation adjusted. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-20 18:57 |
#2 SDB's wrong on one count. Taxing gaseoline is the most effective of reducing consumptio. Kyoto is in effect a transnational tax where developing countries sell phuny carbon credit to developed countries. BTW, I expect the US and other are seeing a clamour to reduce tax on gas and oil in reponse to rising oil prices as we are in Oz. Whereas, governments should do exactly the opposite and raise taxes, because this far and away the most effective of encouraging the development of alternatives. |
Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-20 18:55 |
#1 ...because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. It's funny when people are right for the wrong reasons. |
Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-04-20 16:41 |