Forbes Exposes Glaring Inconsistency In Global Warming Opposition

nuclear power plantConservatives should “call the left’s bluff” on global warming by asking why environmentalists oppose using proven technologies like nuclear power or hydraulic fracturing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, according to an article published Thursday in Forbes.

James Taylor points out in the piece that if conservatives pressure the left to accept natural gas and nuclear power by citing their environmental benefits, the left would either be forced to abandon their opposition or risk their political credibility by continuing to claim that global warming is the nation’s greatest threat.

“Global warming is a greater threat to the American people than global terrorism, you say? Fine, then stop obstructing the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process that is responsible for approximately half of our natural gas production,” Taylor writes. “Global warming is a greater threat to the American military than Russian fighters that simulate attacks on our Navy vessels in international waters? Then stop demanding we dismantle hydroelectric dams that produce affordable, emissions-free electricity.

“Global warming is a greater threat to our military than a rapidly militarizing China?” he continues. “Then allow America to generate more of our electricity from nuclear power, as do nations such as France.”

Taylor notes that transitioning to natural gas cuts CO2 emissions roughly in half while nuclear energy entirely gets rid of CO2 emissions, but that major environmental groups, including Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, and left wing politicians vehemently oppose both of these energy sources. He also points out that both natural gas and nuclear are far more reliable than wind or solar, have costs comparable to conventional coal power and have numerous other major advantages.

The average single nuclear reactor prevents 3.1 million tons of CO2 emissions annually and accounts for 63 percent of non-CO2 emitting power sources. The 2012 closure of the two-reactor San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California caused CO2 emissions to rise annually by 9 million metric tons, equivalent to taking 2 million cars off the road. Nuclear power is far cheaper than wind or solar power, making it “the most cost-effective zero-emission technology,” according to The Economist.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    That stuttering your hearing is green wash lobbyist’s trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths .

    What they really mean is :

    1. What rhetoric and scary climate Armageddon spin will raise the most money . There old anti -nukes cry would have to be dusted off and then exposed for the complete hypocrisy to their current campaign to stop the worlds fever . Silence is best when confronted with this uncomfortable reality .

    2. What they really mean is they don’t like a free market system and know affordable energy supports that model . It is harder to impose your socialist agenda when people
    have some freedom of choice and are not slaves to nut job mandarins .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.