Much of the international news coverage of Japan’s earthquake/tsunami tragedy has shifted in recent days. Instead of telling us more about those who have lost their loved ones and homes, attention is being focused on the problems associated with the Fukushima nuclear power plants.
While most people seem convinced that the unfolding Fukushima disaster proves conclusively that nuclear power is an unthinkable option, some are drawing the opposite conclusion. Prof. George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist and long-time nuclear opponent in the UK, is persuaded that the scale of the Fukushima disasters actually proves the superiority of nuclear power to fossil fuels. Read his Guardian column (“Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power” March 29, 2011) on nuclear power here and listen to his same-day interview here with NPR’s All Things Considered. You can also read opposing views in the Guardian here (“Weighing up the cost of nuclear power, March 29, 2011).
One thing is clear: world-wide demand for energy is increasing. Those who would prefer a nuclear-free future must articulate an energy path that meets this demand without nuclear power, and simultaneously rapidly reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and does not harm humans and/or the environment. This is not a simple matter. Monbiot maintains that nuclear v. coal/gas is the only realistic choice for the near future. He correctly notes that we seem to have a “perspective” problem, allowing ourselves to be transfixed over (so far) minor radiation releases while forgetting the large number of coal miners who are killed in mining accidents every year.
And, may I ask, why do we find it so hard to reduce power consumption?
