Nuclear Summer?

The nuclear establishment==s relationship with the global warming

movement

by Walt Robbins

February, 2009

Did the world nuclear establishment instigate the concept of global warming
in order to insure its own survival and potential expansion?

Some may think Ainstigate@ is too strong a word. However, the influence of
the nuclear establishment on the development and perpetuation of the
global warming-climate change movement during the 1980's and 90's to the
present, certainly raises some serious questions about its role.

Prior to the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992 and
the 1997 Kyoto assemblage, the world=s nuclear establishment was
sustained by financial Alife supports@ from governments and was facing
imminent collapse. Since the 1970's, orders for new reactors had all but
dried up. Even nuclear engineers were becoming an endangered species
resulting from lack of new projects.

During the 1980's, the time was ripe for the nuclear establishment to
escalate its efforts to assure its survival and to expand its horizons. Its
actions suggest that its strategy was designed to achieve a Anuclear
renaissance.@ The strategy appears to have coupled the growing world
demands for energy with the idea of a human-induced world-wide
environmental Ameltdown@ caused by greenhouse gasses. Nuclear was
portrayed by its advocates as the ideal solution to this two-pronged energy
and environmental threat.

However, it appears that the nuclear establishment had been working on this
project for a much longer period of time.

According to former Australian National Environment Correspondent, Alan

Tate, the nuclear establishment has been promoting itself as a solution to
climate change for decades.

He points out that its representatives were in abundance during the 1988
climate change convention in Argentina.
"They inundated the international negotiators, including with what appeared
to be a number of front groups like Students for Nuclear Power,"

Furthermore, in the UK during the 1970's, nuclear energy interests worked

with Margaret Thatcher=s government to use global warming as a way of
boosting nuclear power.

A UK News, March 4th, 2007, article recounts a BBC Channel 4 documentary

made by Producer Martin Durkin called 'Global Warming Is Lies.= It depicts
how the global warming research drive really began when Mrs. Thatcher
gave money to scientists to prove burning coal and oil was harmful, as part
of her intense effort to stimulate the growth of
nuclear power.

In the U.S., the eminent scientist, Alvin Weinberg, former Oak Ridge
National Laboratory Director, and others involved in the early days of
nuclear energy, were promoting the idea of nuclear as the future energy
source to deal with a potential CO2/global warming problem stemming from
the use of carbon-based fuels.

But the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents damaged public
confidence in nuclear technology. As well, the unsolved nuclear waste issue
was becoming an albatross around the nuclear neck. Thus, global warming
became the main rationale for the unpopular nuclear power facilities which
were required for nuclear weapons development.

Additionally, to achieve its survival and expansion goals, the nuclear

establishment knew it could rely on its long-standing relationship with, and
powerful influence on, the world=s scientific community, which it had
developed in its early days; during the 1950's and early 60's.

As a middle management level employee in the headquarters of the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission for three years in the late 1950's, I had a
grandstand seat from which to witness the rapid, almost meteoric rise of the
AAtoms for Peace@ program and all that it entailed. The public was told that
nuclear energy would be Atoo cheap to meter.@

It was an era of cost plus fixed fee contracts for some of the largest U.S.
corporations, as well as the development of lucrative Asymbiotic@
relationships with broad-based university science and engineering programs.
Money was no object. The Eisenhower administration made sure of that.
Scientific and engineering disciplines (especially physical, biological, earth,
and medical sciences) benefited greatly from the bulging nuclear pocketbook
augmented with its massive support from governments.
By the 1980's, it had become very difficult to locate scientists or engineers in
virtually any discipline anywhere in the world who would openly criticize
nuclear energy. Try to find a scientist today who will lend his or her name to
the "no nukes" side of the nuclear energy controversy! A few exist but they
are generally blacklisted or worse by the mainstream scientific community
and governments around the world.

When I was a spokesperson for the Concerned Citizens of Manitoba

(regarding nuclear waste issues) in the early 80's, it was clear that you
could count the number of scientific and technical critics on the fingers of
your hands. The giant world nuclear establishment had become a major
source of employment, professional opportunities, and especially large
financial grants for scientific exploration into climate change and global
warming. Its= influence was indeed formidable.

In 1988, an intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed

under United Nations auspices to study the impact of human intervention on
the climate, and by 1997, the nuclear establishment was pushing the global
warming envelope to new heights.

According to writer Jeffrey St. Clair,co-editor of the political newsletter

Counterpunch, the very well-heeled Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
distributed a packet to the Kyoto convention participants promoting the
benefits of nuclear energy to the environment and especially to the global
warming issue. Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and other
environmental groups have been working to block the nuclear
establishment=s efforts A...to use the pollution trading credit scheme in the
Kyoto climate change agreement to offset nuclear energy=s oppressive
construction costs.@

While most environmentalists involved in the Kyoto process did not embrace
nuclear as a Agreen@ technology, others actually slipped into the nuclear
camp, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. I find it disheartening
that any environmentalist would advocate nuclear energy as solution to
anything, but, unhappily, some have. But the battle goes on. During the
December 2008 United Nations Framework Convention in Poznan, Poland
some church and women=s groups admirably continued the fight to prevent
the labeling of nuclear energy as clean and green.

One of the most hawkish friends of the nuclear establishment=s future and,
especially, its environmental role, is global warming guru, former U.S. Vice
President, Al Gore.
Jeffery St. Clair describes the aggressive nuclear establishment lobbying
effort directed at the U.S. government noting A...a long and profitable
relationship with both Clinton and Gore.@ He goes on to say that A...Al Gore,
who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth
in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests
of two of the nuclear industry's most problematic enterprises, the TVA and
the Oak Ridge Labs.@

In October, 2000, NIRS pointed out that Aunfortunately, the Clinton/Gore

Administration is not only willing to include nuclear power in the Kyoto
process, but to allow it equal status and credits with renewable energy@

Although, currently, the former Vice President tends to understate the future
role of nuclear energy in dealing with the climate change-global warming
issue, I seriously doubt that his true allegiance to the future of nuclear
power has been diminished..

During my tenure with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I heard much
about the influence and efforts of the political Gore family to promote and
develop nuclear energy, especially on their Tennessee home turf at the Oak
Ridge facility.

AKyoto targets are reachable now with nuclear energy,@ is but one of the
many article titles found on the Canadian Nuclear Association web site
related to the climate issue. Its reading list is replete with such literature,
even to the point of pushing electric car development, (another hoped for
nuclear energy sinecure).

The nuclear establishment is pulling out all the stops and is spending a
fortune (much of which is taxpayers= dollars) to tout its energy source as the
cure for global warming. And the strategy seems to be paying off, with a
significant increase in activity and identification of potential new reactor
projects around the world, including North America.

But I do not see references in the nuclear energy propaganda to the fact
that large quantities of greenhouse gasses are emitted in the processes of
uranium mining, refining and milling required to produce the fuel rods for
the reactors. Furthermore, little is said about the irradiated nuclear fuel
waste for which no acceptable solution exists.

The big question now, however, is how governments, faced with a severe
and deepening economic downturn, will deal with the very expensive nuclear
expansion issue.
Unable to stand on its own two feet financially, will the nuclear
establishment be able to count on continuing life support from governments,
many of which are now committed to the global warming movement? It is
too early to answer that question fully, but one sad indication was recently
provided by NIRS that A...the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee late on
the night of January 27 (2009) snuck in a provision to President Obama's
economic stimulus package that would allow as much as $50 BILLION of
your dollars to be used as loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear
reactors. This would be on top of the $18.5 billion taxpayer dollars already
authorized by Congress during the Bush administration.@

Also, many countries have been bamboozled by the nuclear establishment=s

lies about its potential to deal with climate change and the world=s energy
requirements. With the exception of Germany which still plans to phase out
nuclear energy by 2021, a number of European and Asian countries, are in
the process of planning a nuclear future.

However, I would not be surprised to see most of these potential projects

succumb to a likely long-term economic meltdown and a massive reduction
of energy consumption throughout the developed world. After all, these
large nuclear projects are extraordinarily expensive, subject to substantial
cost overruns and take at least a decade to complete.

In the meanwhile, even without the obscene level of subsidies granted to

nuclear from governments, sustainable alternative green energy could still
create a paradigm shift in many parts of the world. Hopefully, governments
will come to their senses and begin to provide the kind of support needed to
really stimulate the green alternatives to nuclear.

However, regardless of what one may think or believe about the issue itself,
the most scary thing for me is the mounting evidence of a large measure of
Agroupthink@ among the global warming advocates of the scientific
community and the distortion of the meaning of science itself.

Irving Janis, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, who

did extensive work on the subject of groupthink, defined it as Aa mode of
thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive
in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their
motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.@

Groupthink is particular nasty when found in science. In ancient times,

scientific skeptics were sometimes even dispatched to oblivion for their
heresies. Today, such skeptics who do not fully embrace the global warming
theory are marginalized and even ridiculed by the self-righteous. If they
refuse to accept the Atruth,@ they are even labeled as Adeniers,@ a term
which has a particularly unfortunate connotation.

My understanding of what science is supposed to be all about may be

deemed quaint by some. But here it is:

Science is at its best when it openly projects a high degree of skepticism

about its= own findings and conclusions and freely admits that "all is
tentative." It is at its best when it deals in a respectful and reasonable
manner with those who disagree or have doubts. It is at its best when it
serves as an independent arm of society and does not tie itself to special
interest groups or to those who have personal or organizational agendas.

Humility is also a virtue for science. For example, the earth and
environmental sciences are chronologically in their infancy. Yet, they
frequently do not behave that way. It is important to acknowledge this fact
and that it is possible that many predictions and computer model forecasts,
etc. may not be much more accurate than a coin flip and may turn out to be
simply wrong.

Caution and prudence are needed when issuing public statements about
potential consequences of scientific findings and conclusions. The very
reputation of science is at stake when it takes on the aura of a "new
priesthood."

The nuclear establishment itself, also contains many of the classic

ingredients of Agroup think.@ As a retired organization development
consultant, I have witnessed this phenomenon from the perspective of both
the inside and the outside of the establishment.

But I was particularly pleased to discover an item written by a former

employee of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., a nuclear energy advocate,
who has some misgivings about the global warming-climate change issue.
He is a Mr. JAL Robertson, an excellent writer who carefully analyzes and
evaluates this issue. Calling himself Aa Kyoto Skeptic, but not a Climate
Change Denier@ he points out in a January 24, 2007 article in the North
Renfrew, Ontario, Times, that AWhen uncertainties in the (climate change)
model are considered, it would be irresponsible to damage the economy for
a futile gesture.

Resources would be better spent combating true pollution of air, water and
land, that is harming and killing real people who are alive today. I am
concerned that when the public realizes that they have been misled they will
distrust all scientists ("They told us..."), and not just Kyoto proponents. For
the same reason we nuclear advocates should not rely on nuclear energy's
lack of GHGs (greenhouse gasses): it has plenty of advantages without
having to rely on a dubious one.@

Although I surely do not subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy has
Aplenty of advantages,@ and lacks GHGs, (see my article on downsides), I
do completely agree with him that the main priority today is to address the
big, immediate killers; air, water and land pollution.

But would nuclear energy make much of a difference in the event that the
predictions of the climate change movement materialize? Many observers
have pointed out that for a variety of reasons, it is totally unrealistic to
believe that nuclear energy, even in massive doses, could make a dent in
solving the problem as presented by its advocates.

My own personal view of the climate change issue is: of course the climate is
changing; it has ever since the earth was formed and is likely to continue
doing so until the Aend of time.@ As Mr. Robertson indicates, the real issue is,
to what extent does human activity affect the climate and, if it does, what
might be the consequences?

On that point, I am agnostic.

The Afine hand@ of the nuclear establishment in the creation of this global
warming movement is far too much in evidence not to raise considerable
suspicion in my mind about its legitimacy. My agnosticism also extends to
the philosophical position that it is the height of arrogance to suggest that
we puny humans really have the power to savage Mother Earth to such a
degree (and in such a short time) as predicted by Al Gore and his followers.

For me, the jury is still out!