Peter Dotchev

Will the environmental activists opposing nuclear electricity ever admit mistake? If the goal is to protect the environment, it’s hard to name a movement that has achieved the opposite of its intent more spectacularly. If only they had been on the right side of history 50 years ago… If the world embraced nuclear electricity instead of burning fossil fuels for electricity, 60% of Earth’s greenhouse gases accumulating from human activity would not be there. We would not have a climate change crisis to worry about. But it’s worse than that. I just finished reading Boemeke’s book Rad Future last night: “In a single year, the pollution from burning fossil fuels causes at least four million deaths” (p.11) “Nuclear has the lowest impact on ecosystems of all energy sources.” (56) “Exaggerated fear is killing us. After Germany shut down its nuclear plants in response to Fukushima, coal was used to replace lost power. A study found that this shift resulted in at least 1,100 premature deaths every year due to the increase in air pollution. There’s even a specific word for this specific brand of terror: ‘radiophobia.’ This fear can be a lot deadlier than radiation itself.” (69) “It seems that Germany is hell bent on being consistently on the wrong side of history. Germany chose to rely on coal and imported gas, making its electricity nearly ten times dirtier than France’s. By the start of the Ukraine conflict, Germany was paying Russia about $220 million a day for gas to keep its ‘nuclear free’ dream alive.” (158) “Greenpeace started as an anti-nuclear weapons group, but its opposition expanded to include nuclear electricity. Greenpeace and other organizations overstated the dangers of radiation to get people to push back” (146) “A few environmental non-profits [still] take a very loud antinuclear stance, Greenpeace being the biggest offender.” (206) “Nuclear energy now ranks as one of the safest forms of energy, thanks in part to those vocal hippies. But it’s time for them, and the ones who followed in their footsteps update their world view based on facts. The data doesn’t just say nuclear is safe, it proves it is the energy source with the smallest environmental footprint.” (201) But will Greenpeace change their stance and admit they are protesting the cleanest and most environmentally benign alternative, as they have with nuclear electricity, GMO crops and deep seabed mining? Sadly, as I learned from a recently departed Greenpeace executive, protesting along a vein of fear has proven to be their best fundraising strategy. Even if it’s rank misinformation, fear of the "new thing" is more powerful than data-driven pragmatism. It is a tragedy writ large for the oceans and the planet. Enter WePlanet, a new "environmentalism of hope.” They are new to me, but I am delighted to see a pro-science, data-driven environmental activist organization arise. Meaningful change always comes from new entrants, and for the environmental movement, it is long overdue.