Environmentalists are in a constant fight against nuclear energy as a technology to satisfy our energy demands. It is a beautiful manifestation of how they are willing to listen to scientists once it confirms their narrative, but reject them as soon as it contradicts their fact-free virtue-signalling. Conservation scientists agree: real environmentalists support nuclear energy.
In December 2014, 75 conservation scientists from all over the world penned An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy, claiming that it is an effective and necessary way to produce energy, and that the facts contradict the ideological reasoning of modern-day environmentalists.
Gathered by Professor Barry W. Brook – Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania, Australia, an ecologist who has published three books and over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers – these scientists also stated:
“Although renewable energy sources like wind and solar will likely make increasing contributions to future energy production, these technology options face real-world problems of scalability, cost, material and land use, meaning that it is too risky to rely on them as the only alternatives to fossil fuels.”
Those concerned about carbon emissions (which we should all be, including those who are sceptic towards the authenticity of anthropogenic global warming, as pollution in itself constitutes a health hazard), need to realise that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative which is safe, clean and able to guarantee the production we necessitate.
With regards to capacity and safety, scientists agree that progress can easily be made:
“They [conservation scientists Brook and Bradshaw in an article published by Conservation Biology] provide strong evidence for the need to accept a substantial role for advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling—as part of a range of sustainable energy technologies that also includes appropriate use of renewables, energy storage and energy efficiency. This multi-pronged strategy for sustainable energy could also be more cost-effective and spare more land for biodiversity, as well as reduce non-carbon pollution (aerosols, heavy metals).”
Now, modern-day environmentalists who’ll be reading this, will shake their heads and ignore the fact that scientists (you know, the people they willingly believe on global warming) disagree with their calls for phasing-out nuclear energy as fast as possible. That is mostly because they are embedded too deep into their ideology.
It’s the non-ideologues who need to take an evidence-based position on this subject and take a bold stand for energy security.