Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Looking back at Monbiot's now infamous article in The Guardian:  Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate
Before I go any further, and I'm misinterpreted for the thousandth time, let me spell out once again what my position is. I have not gone nuclear. But, as long as the following four conditions are met, I will no longer oppose atomic energy.

1. Its total emissions - from mine to dump - are taken into account, and demonstrate that it is a genuinely low-carbon option

2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried

3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay

4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes

To these I'll belatedly add a fifth, which should have been there all along: no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe. This should have been so obvious that it didn't need spelling out. But we discover, yet again, that the blindingly obvious is no guarantee that a policy won't be adopted.

What is noteworthy in connection with the debate with Helen Caldicott is that Monbiot's "emissions" concers are entirely about CO2. He's assuming that "no radiation is released" if all the other conditions are met.

Giambrone quotes

When directed to the New York Academy of Sciences compendium of 5,000 of these translated studies on Chernobyl, George Monbiot simply dismisses these numerous studies as "cherry picking."

"Well, we have to use the best available science, not cherry-pick our sources..."

He uses this buzzword at least three times, as he also uses the "climate change deniers" smear again and again. This is Monbiot's style of so-called "debate."

So here we have a single-issue global warming advocate (Monbiot) accusing (or so Giambrone implies) a single-issue radiation contamination advocate (Caldicott) of being a climate change denier and coal advocate. I suppose then Monbiot can be accused of being an anthropogenic background radiation exacerbation denier.

Are we having fun yet?

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 05:13:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series