Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the propaganda effort to cast nuclear as a ‘green’ form of energy.
Supposedly, nuclear is ‘green’ simply because it reduces humanity’s carbon footprint.
And we all ‘know’ the only thing that matters is carbon, right?
I’m not suggesting that reducing our carbon footprint isn’t important. It is.
But it’s far from the whole story — as, for instance, the more than 100,000 people who have signed on to a petition to prevent environmentally destructive uranium mining near the Grand Canyon clearly recognize.
Tunnel vision on carbon That said, there are far too many cases in which people focus on carbon to the complete exclusion of other environmental pollutants.
I’m starting an ongoing list of examples which illustrate an exclusive — and simplistic — focus on carbon under this new “They’re Obsessed with Carbon Wall of Shame” list.
The point: To undercut the attempt by pro-nuke propagandists to pass nuclear off as green — simply on the grounds that nuclear reduces humanity’s carbon footprint.
Our society’s obsession with carbon — as if it is the only pollutant that matters — blinds us to the serious, non-green side of nuclear power.
This is a seriously reductive argument. There’s far more to the allegedly ‘green’ nuclear picture than carbon — for instance a toxic waste trail that will last thousands of years.
But, again, our society’s obsession with carbon — as if it is the only pollutant that matters — blinds us to the serious, non-green side of nuclear power.
Please feel free to contact me with suggested additions to the “They’re Obsessed With Carbon Wall of Shame.”
The primary criterion is simple: If the comment, web page, etc. implies that carbon is the only pollutant that matters and that therefore nuclear allegedly = green, it qualifies for listing on our “They’re Obsessed With Carbon Wall of Shame”.