Stupid Biased Brits
Is anyone surprised to read this nonsense?
First off, has any one even ever heard of the New Economics Foundation? As far as I'm concerned, this is probably a bunch of pseudo-intellectual wankers who pass themselves off nebulously as a "think tank", and the Agence France Presse makes it news.
This Andrew Simms character claims that "nuclear power would be too costly and too slow to develop in time". How does that work, exactly? I don't know which countries constitute the entirety of the Group of Eight, but I know that three of them are the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, all of whom have had nuclear power now for decades. There's no development left: you just build the damn thing. So his argument really doesn't wash.
As for the group's claims about terrorism, yes, there's a concern. However, to the best of my knowledge the security at these facilities is tight enough to preclude most chances of terrorism for one simple reason: the stuff is dangerous enough that you have to take care of it, just like the waste is so nasty that you have to properly dispose of it.
There has been a risk that has, in some cases, come true: people will use "terrorism" to whine about anything. The fear from liberal hippies is that the evil fascists of the Bush Administration would use the excuse of "terrorism" to deprive Americans of our civil rights. As far as I'm concerned, this fear hasn't really come to fruition; the claim of a "culture of fear" is, I think, largely false. Unfortunately, it can blow the other way, as it has in this case where a non-issue has been turned into an issue by a "think tank" group of rabidly anti-nuclear hippies.
Those of us who have been paying attention here in the Northwest would have seen or heard a report on the local news a couple of weeks ago that served as another example of this. The Northwest's only fighter wing is being shifted to another location as part of the Department of Defense base closures and restructuring plan. The result? The governors of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington criticized the plans, saying that it made those states more susceptible to terrorism. Has anyone ever attacked the Northwest from the air (or at all)? Nope. Is the Pacific Northwest a worthwhile terrorist target? Not really; there aren't as many people here, there's a lot more rural area, and the Northwest wouldn't be the propaganda target that other areas would be. To these governors, it amounts to two things: politics, and economic conditions. The solution? Use the rhetoric of the times and criticize the evil fascist Bush administration by using that nebulous term, "terrorism".
This "think tank", the one that wants to reduce emissions, but doesn't want to do it through the use of the safest, most effective, and least polluting method of power production ever devised, reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons...
Indeed.
Thus Saith the Fly.
A British think tank opposed Wednesday what it said were draft plans by the Group of Eight (G8) industrial nations to expand the use of nuclear energy as a way to fight global warming.
Issuing its report before next week's G8 summit in Scotland, the New Economics Foundation said nuclear power was an uneconomical and inefficient way to deal with climate change and would increase the risks from terrorists.
Andrew Simms, author of the report, "Mirage and Oasis," told AFP that nuclear power would be too costly and too slow to develop in time to deal with the urgency of reducing the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
First off, has any one even ever heard of the New Economics Foundation? As far as I'm concerned, this is probably a bunch of pseudo-intellectual wankers who pass themselves off nebulously as a "think tank", and the Agence France Presse makes it news.
This Andrew Simms character claims that "nuclear power would be too costly and too slow to develop in time". How does that work, exactly? I don't know which countries constitute the entirety of the Group of Eight, but I know that three of them are the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, all of whom have had nuclear power now for decades. There's no development left: you just build the damn thing. So his argument really doesn't wash.
As for the group's claims about terrorism, yes, there's a concern. However, to the best of my knowledge the security at these facilities is tight enough to preclude most chances of terrorism for one simple reason: the stuff is dangerous enough that you have to take care of it, just like the waste is so nasty that you have to properly dispose of it.
There has been a risk that has, in some cases, come true: people will use "terrorism" to whine about anything. The fear from liberal hippies is that the evil fascists of the Bush Administration would use the excuse of "terrorism" to deprive Americans of our civil rights. As far as I'm concerned, this fear hasn't really come to fruition; the claim of a "culture of fear" is, I think, largely false. Unfortunately, it can blow the other way, as it has in this case where a non-issue has been turned into an issue by a "think tank" group of rabidly anti-nuclear hippies.
Those of us who have been paying attention here in the Northwest would have seen or heard a report on the local news a couple of weeks ago that served as another example of this. The Northwest's only fighter wing is being shifted to another location as part of the Department of Defense base closures and restructuring plan. The result? The governors of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington criticized the plans, saying that it made those states more susceptible to terrorism. Has anyone ever attacked the Northwest from the air (or at all)? Nope. Is the Pacific Northwest a worthwhile terrorist target? Not really; there aren't as many people here, there's a lot more rural area, and the Northwest wouldn't be the propaganda target that other areas would be. To these governors, it amounts to two things: politics, and economic conditions. The solution? Use the rhetoric of the times and criticize the evil fascist Bush administration by using that nebulous term, "terrorism".
This "think tank", the one that wants to reduce emissions, but doesn't want to do it through the use of the safest, most effective, and least polluting method of power production ever devised, reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons...
Agnes: [to her grocery store bag boy] And you, start over! I want everything in one bag.
Bag Boy 2: Yes, ma'am.
Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.
Bag Boy 2: I don't think that's possible.
Agnes: What are you, the Possible Police? Just do it.
Indeed.
Thus Saith the Fly.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home