Environmentalists

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR™ is in favor of all energies which respect the environment, including the peaceful applications of clean nuclear energy (which has the greatest industrial potential), as well as renewable energies (hydro, solar, geothermal, and wind, all have appropriate roles to play, but with a much smaller potential).

Albert Einstein said: " If you succeed in using the nuclear-physical findings for peaceful purposes, it will open the way to a new paradise".

Pro-Nuke Environmentalists? *

Jun 01 - Roanoke Times & World News A small, but growing, number of people in the environmental movement is taking the dire threat of global warming seriously enough to embrace a virtual heresy: support, however qualified, of nuclear energy.

In a recent article in Technology Review, Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, wrote of the need to do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions in energy production. But all the traditional "green" sources of energy - wind, solar, biomass - cannot produce enough energy.

"The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon- dioxide loading is nuclear power," he wrote.

While hardly a consensus, such advocacy of nuclear power as an alternative to carbon-based fuels appears to be gaining momentum among environmentalists.

Apollo Alliance On The Senate Floor

During the Senate discussion of the Climate Security Act of 2008 (more commonly known as Warner-Lieberman)

Senator Lieberman (I-CT) spoke about the Apollo-like investment that is needed.

We have to understand as we consider this bill that it will not only deal with the problem of global warming; this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America, in its right mind, should have adopted 30 years ago. People have said we need a Manhattan Project; we need an Apollo Moon shot project to make America energy independent, to break our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation will invest more than six times the amount of money that the Apollo project and the Manhattan Project combined spent. We need to do it to free ourselves–free America–from dependence on foreign oil, from tyrants in places such as Iran and Venezuela.

My comment: A Manhattan project to make America energy independent? Easy to say, but not easy to accomplish. I do not see anything in the Bill that would make us energy independent.

Environmentalists delude themselves. The Union of Concerned Scientists UCS put the following on their Web Site:

Cost of Photovoltaics: The price of photovoltaics has declined steadily over time. With increased efficiency and mass production, prices could decrease further. The Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of Energy project a drop in total costs for bulk residential customer installations from $6.72/watt in 1997 to $3.05/watt in 2010 and $1.77/watt in 2020. If, as expected, solar module efficiency increases from 14 percent to 20 percent, utility-scale systems could fall to 6.2 cents/kWh in 2020 and 5 cents/kWh in 2030."

When I came to California to 1975 the cost of PV's was $15/watt. Recently I got a bid for my home and cost was $12/watt. It was never was $6.72/watt in 1997. I do not see the cost ever coming down much further then $10/watt. Get a bid yourself if you do not believe me. The DOE Spends about 80 million dollars per year on PV research and I don't see any results from this money. Also to get the solar module's efficiency up the cost goes up. There is no evidence that would support such drastic reduction in PV capital costs. And can you see people frequently washing these modules high up on the second story of their roofs?

Below is a conclusion of a piece that appeared in the Natural Resources Defense Council's Web Site (NRDC Site). It is full of good words about diminishing fossil fuels and acting with determination to enable conservation and renewable energies as an international goal. I do not see anywhere in the entire NRDC web Site that would indicated the feasibility of renewables from a economic or feasibility standpoint. Dreaming will not take care of the human race. Nuclear power will.

To reverse the adverse effects of energy use, sustainable energy development has been implemented. Although explained in many different ways, essentially this movement entails the development of new technologies and habits to promote a future that meets the current expectations of our society, and for generations to come. This concept involves many technical, economic, and social dimensions. As well, sustainability requires transition from old habits to new ones, conventional resources to current available ones, and also from inefficiency to effectiveness and conservation. Only through global cooperation, patience, and persistence, will the dependence of fossil fuels diminish and new futures and opportunities begin. (I wonder what the new technologies are that will meet our current expectations of our society?)

The choice is ours. Leadership and vision are required by a systems approach through cooperation, coordination and communication among governments, industries, academia and society. In view of the significant lead times prior to achieving market penetration and thereby reducing capital cost, one must act with determination such that renewable energies will take a firm hold on the international goal of sustainable development.

The NRDC maintain that we only need to conserve and use renewable energy systems to survive. They disdain fossils and nuclear. However, they do not live up to it in their own practice. Example, they have an administration building in Santa Monica, California, I think they call it the Robert Redford building. It won awards for being an example of a very efficient green building. For their electric energy they have photovoltaic cells on the roof which supplies 20% of their electric energy needs.

If they think conservation and renewables are the only answer, why didn't they put enough PV cells on the roof to supply all of their energy? Or perhaps conserve a little more? They did neither, than boast about how well conservation and renewables perform and how well they live up to the cause. Eighty percent of their electric energy comes from the likes of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

If they had built this building in Little Falls, Minnesota I wonder what they would have done for space heating when it gets to 50 F degrees below zero? Moreover, the real estate would have been much less expensive if they had built it in Little Falls. But the suns photons do not go through a foot of snow on the roof. They would have to read by candle light.

California is going to allow many solar and wind plants in the Mojave Desert. But the environmentalists are raising many complaints '

D’Anne Albers, of Defenders of Wildlife, said "The Mojave is one of the best areas in the world for solar radiation." “This is going to be, I think, a huge thing going forward,” “Are we going to sacrifice the desert for solar and wind? … It makes me kind of crazy because there is life in the desert, there is importance to the desert. And once life is disturbed, it’s not coming back. You need to scrape the ground for solar, and it will be difficult for conservationists to get across the point that there are areas in the Mojave that need to be protected."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) raised some eyebrows last week when he ended a speech on states’ role in fighting climate change with a diatribe against his own agency.

“It’s not just businesses that have slowed things down, it’s not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it’s also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down,” he said of the pace of installation of renewable energy generators. He singled out a squirrel as a symbol of environmental protections run amok.

“Our Department of Fish and Game is slowing approval of a solar facility in Victorville. It’s because of an endangered squirrel, an endangered squirrel which has never been seen on that land where they’re supposed to build the solar plants. But if such a squirrel were around, this is the kind of area that it would like, they say.”

The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy

The Apollo Alliance provides a message of optimism and hope, framed around rejuvenating our nation’s economy by creating the next generation of American industrial jobs and treating clean energy as an economic and security mandate to rebuild America. America needs to hope again, to dream again, to think big, and to be called to the best of our potential by tapping the optimism and can-do spirit that is embedded in our nation’s history.

They say "Today the stakes are much, much higher. We face an economy hemorrhaging its highest paying and most productive jobs, cities falling apart with over a trillion dollars in unmet public investment in crumbling schools, transportation, and infrastructure. "

Here is another do good alliance that will lead America to hope and optimism about our economy and energy. Carl Pope of the Sierra club is on the board of directors, so you can see where they are going.

They can treat renewable energy as an economic entity, but it never will be. Take the two cents per kWh gov subsidy off of wind power and watch it collapse.

Nasty side of environmentalism exposed in film entitled "Mine Your own Business"

Issue: A documentary called "Mine Your Own Business" exposes the dark side of environmentalism. The film shows the reaction of some of the world's poorest people to the efforts of western environmentalists that are keeping them jobless and in poverty. These people would like the same opportunities that we enjoy to have a good life without outside influences telling them how to live.

The film's director, Phelim McAleer, predicts his movie "will make a lot of comfortable western people very uncomfortable. It will show them the consequences of their blind faith in our new religion — the religion of environmentalism."

Comment 1: Environmentalists have their mansions, yachts, and private jets but want others to preserve the earth by living without what we think of as necessities: electricity, running water, flush toilets and basic sanitation.. Sounds a lot like the ruling communist class in the Soviet Union who had their dachas while the peasants had very little.

Comment 2: The film exposes the hypocrisy of "Do as I say, not as I do" fat-cat environmentalists.

Comment 3: Our sincere thanks to the good folks at the Heritage Foundation for spreading the word about this important film.

My Comment: The national Council of Churches should take note of this. They are doing the same thing.

Forget about some spectacular breakthrough on hydrogen as an energy source. Do not be fooled by the Green’s claims because, like everything else they propose, their primary goal is to reduce the population of the Earth and anything that can serve their agenda will be pursued amidst a flood of lies.

Alan Caruba is the founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information and commentary on "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy.

Can We Count on You? The most anti-environmental Congress and President in a generation will resume their assault on our nation's air, water, and natural heritage in 2005. You can make a difference by joining with others who are committed to stopping the plunder and pollution. Make a year-end donation to our 2005 war chest. Together, we can stop destructive drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, stop the Cheney energy plan, reverse efforts to repeal clean air and water laws, and protect our magnificent natural monuments. If you believe that we have an obligation to future generations, and if you care, there is no more powerful statement you can make than adding your voice with more than 700,000 Americans who support the Sierra Club. We need your support now more than ever.

The Sierra Club needs money. Why do they take millions of dollars? Cannot they conduct their services by donating their time. I do not take money for my Web Site.

Dr. Bill Wattenburg, a popular scientist who hosts a radio talk show, contends that the Sierra Club has many lawyers who sue for various frivolous causes simply for financial gain. It appears that they long since have been a purely environmentalistic organization.

Of course the Sierra club needs money. Do they donate their time? Not much, and they receive very handsome salaries. And you all pay for it. Here is the rundown of just some of the salaries the officers receive.

Carl Pope, executive director.
Salary $141,704, benefits $16,995.
Appointed executive director 1992. Previously served as Club's associate conservation director, political director, and conservation director.
Former or current board member, California League of Conservation Voters; Public Voice; National Clean Air Coalition; California Common Cause; Public Interest Economics Inc.; Zero Population Growth.
Previously executive director, California League of Conservation Voters; political director, Zero Population Growth.
Graduated summa cum laude Harvard College (1967).

Sierra Club
National Headquarters
85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
Phone: 415-977-5500
Fax: 415-977-5799

Tell them what you think about their organization. They would love to hear form you, especially if you send them some money.

And they don't care for people on this earth. If you like the kind of world they advocate with few people on it, continue to support them.

Hugo Gurdon of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a recent National Post article, noted that "The 12 biggest environmental pressure groups in the United States enjoy combined annual revenues of $1.95 billion, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service figures. Only 725 of the United States’ 20 million companies can boast such magnificent cash flow."

Below is a statement by Denis Hayes who is president & CEO of the Bullitt Foundation in Seattle, and chair and CEO of Earth Day 2000

"To focus again on energy, if you ask a broad cross-section of the population whether they would prefer to create a world in which their children get most of their energy from coal, nuclear, or solar sources, 80 to 90 percent of the people will choose solar. This is just one more bit of evidence that Thomas Jefferson's political insight was correct: The average citizen has a huge amount of common sense. And in an increasingly democratic world, widespread common sense provides a pretty solid foundation for hope."

Hope springs eternally. Why don't they choose solar? If 80 to 90 percent of Californians preferred solar we would have a significant amount of electrical energy from solar. We have a contribution from solar today in California that is so low it is not even measurable.

Here is the answer to our energy supply from an organization called National Environmental Trust (NET)

A forward-looking, responsible energy policy includes four basic principles, all of which can be achieved with technologies available today. Good energy policy should:

My comments: They do not show any evidence that renewables energy sources are capable of reducing our reliance on polluting fossil fuels or nuclear power. Nor do they show how nuclear power is polluting. If course it is not. And since renewables only supply about 3% of our total energy mix it is impossible to see how they can make a dent in reducing our reliance on oil. What do you think of their energy policy? You can join this organization, but they ask for money, of course.

It has been my contention that environmentalists do not desire people on this earth because we foul up the earth by our mere presence. Thus they believe that nuclear power should not be employed because it provides sufficient energy for mankind to grow and multiply. They maintain that the earth is over populated now. When you read the quotes below you will see their contempt for humans.

The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.

—Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!

Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.

—Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Woman's action For Nuclear disarmament.

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.

—Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Woman's action For Nuclear disarmament.

If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered.

—Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.