Buford 1

Jordan Buford

Prof. Hellmers

English Composition II

01 April 2022

Pragmatism: The Missing Fuel Source

The climate debate has been a divisive topic for the last few decades, but the debate is

over. The hard science has been settled, and the argument as to whether climate change exists or

not is akin to claiming the world is flat. The margin for debate on what climate models predict

and how those outcomes impact society are now slim at best. The scientific community has

reached a consensus, but how does the world achieve net-zero carbon emissions? While the

technology exists to achieve a near zero carbon emission economy, world governments have

failed to reach any realistic policy consensus that doesn’t adversely affect the average citizen's

quality of life. However, there is a silver lining where pragmatic solutions exist. Nuclear Energy

alongside the implementation of a fossil fuel deletion schedule based on a CO2 gradient scale

could solve the global climate crisis. The tenable solutions of this thesis will be explored through

a multifaceted approach and fully established by the conclusion of this paper.

To contextualize the topic, a brief history on climate change is required. In a CQ

Researcher report titled “Clean Energy Transition,” the author, Reed Karaim, explains that the

debate for when exactly human activity began to make an impact on the rise of carbon emissions

is still an open ended question; however, the author reveals, “some believe it began as early as

7,000 years ago, when humans first started clearing larger swaths of land and domesticating

animals for primitive agriculture (Karaim 10).” This rationale may be the case for the onset of

humanity's contribution toward carbon emissions, but the cause of more recent and drastic
 Buford 2

changes is quite clear. These irreversible changes began in the middle of the 19th century at the

birth of the industrial revolution. In 1861, the Irish physicist John Tyndall and years later,

Swedish chemist Svante Arrenius confirmed that these heat-holding gasses were problematic

(Karaim 11). Throughout the 20th century scientists continued to find evidence that carbon

emission levels were rising and finally in 1988 over one hundred years later, the UN established

an official scientific panel on tracking climate change (Karaim 11).

The more relevant and popular cultural debate can be given credibility in the form of

interviews conducted by American comedian, Joe Rogan, on his podcast with two prominent

scientific minds that hold opposing policy opinions. The first of Joe Rogan’s interviews was with

Professor Steven Koonin of New York University who framed a dissenting view at modern

climate policy and planning based on the current climate model, which Koonin claims are

incomplete. Koonin claims that during his time as the Undersecretary for Science in the Obama

Administration that he grew increasingly concerned with the reactions he received to his probing

of the “settled science” as he calls it. Koonin is a Physicist by trade and only became involved

with the topic of climate science due to his involvement with the various scientific councils and

boards he was on during his time in government. Although his opinions on the topic of climate

change could be perceived as a form of ultracrepidarianism, Koonin is adamant that his skills,

knowledge, and experience as a scientist and a researcher bring relevancy to his position.

Additionally, in Koonin’s book titled “Unsettled,” he brings attention to the rhetorical game of

telephone being played with climate alarmism and blames corporate media, politicians, and

pundits for the current state of divisiveness. Koonin claims that he is more concerned with the

dogmatic view that the science is settled and that the climate models are advertised as
 Buford 3

deterministic with no mention of any of their potential shortcomings or implicated alarmism

(Rogan; Koonin).

In his second interview, Joe Rogan speaks with Professor Andrew Dessler of

Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M. Dessler appears annoyed and dismissive of Koonin and

likens him to rogue scientists from the middle of the 20th century arguing for the safety of

tobacco use, but this time for oil companies. Dessler says it’s a relevant point to bring up that

Koonin at one time was the Chief Scientist for the BP oil company. Dessler derides Koonin’s

assertion that humans have only had a small impact on current CO2 levels, and he claims that

humans are 100% responsible for 100% of the current CO2 rises. Although they mostly disagree

on policy implementation, Dessler does admit that he agrees with Koonin on many other points

and that the two in fact don’t disagree on the scientific facts all that much but for this one major

exception regarding human impact on CO2 and climate models. During the interview, Dessler

explains that solar and wind energy sources are now on par with the cost of fossil fuels and that

the U.S. needs to keep moving in this direction and drop all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Although he admits that he’s not the biggest fan of nuclear energy, Dressler says that he

would be all for nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions if that’s the route policy makers

wished to pursue, but unfortunately, it’s not.

Additionally, Dessler lays out and defines current policies, terminologies, and definitions

in his book titled “Introduction to Modern Climate Change.” In his book, Dessler explains that

there is a comprehensive system already set up to get politicians the pertinent information and a

way to hold outlier countries responsible that would seek to slow or impede progress. Dessler

points out one such occasion where corrupt impediment was thwarted in the 1995 report from the

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Saudi Arabia and Kuwait argued strenuously to
 Buford 4

weaken the statements about humans causing climate change. When the rest of the world

disagreed, it was then proposed that a footnote would be added to the report noting the

disagreement - but the footnote was removed at Saudi Arabia and Kuwait’s request because it

would have been embarrassing for those two major oil producers to be the only countries in the

world to not accept the scientific evidence of human impacts on climate” (Dessler 12).

The report Dessler is referring to comes from the IPCC, and it summarizes all peer

reviewed papers on climate change into a document that is approximately 3,675 pages in length.

Obviously, policymakers don’t have the time nor the expertise to review all this information.

Consequently, the IPCC also publishes what is known as the SPM also known as “The Summary

for Policymakers” to summarize all the key findings of review papers from 3,675 pages down

into 37 pages (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Dessler 12). Ultimately, Dessler is a

strong academic voice for the move towards a carbon neutral economy and is more interested in

the debate on energy policy rather than arguing about what the scientific community has

determined as settled science.

Dessler remains skeptical of anyone that might be perceived as a shill for big energy, big

oil, or anyone trying to disregard the climate's future for profits and while climate deniers are a

fringe minority at this point, there is still a lively disagreement as to what could and should be

done. The troubling thing is that Koonin isn’t completely wrong or alone in his skepticism either.

As it turns out, the debate now leans evermore towards global economics.

In an interview with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Bjorn

Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank, puts the climate debate

into perspective. Lomborg says that in one hundred years the global GDP will be 2-4% lower

than it would have been because of climate change. This is to say that the amount of global
 Buford 5

resources spent because of climate change won’t cause the world’s GDP to be 2-4% less rich

than it is today but rather 2-4% less rich than it would have been otherwise. Lomborg says that

the amount of money climate alarmist policy makers are wanting to spend on the problem isn’t

proportionate and in fact would be even more detrimental to the world’s future GDP. While this

line of reasoning may sound one dimensional and only focused on profit gains for global elites,

Lomborg asserts that global GDP is tied to a decrease in global poverty. Lomborg further cites

that his argument was inspired by the works of the Environmental Economist and Nobel Prize

winner William Nordhaus. Lomborg recognizes the IPCC as being the global authority on

climate change but points out that the group has fallen short on including these GDP statistics in

their reports. Lomborg’s position is that world governments can’t do all good things for all

people all the time. Instead of driving every goal simultaneously, determine how free trade from

the developed world to the developing world and a focused set of goals in order of priority would

bring the world the greatest good for the least amount of capital expenditure. Lomborg’s ‘biggest

bang for the buck’ approach in lifting up the developing world through free-trade economics is a

key factor in solving the global climate crisis. Lomborg remains critical of developed nations

climate goals as too costly while making an example of one piece of U.S. legislation titled “The

Green New Deal” as unrealistic. Lomborg also says that the discovery of fracking natural gas in

the U.S. is a “fluke” for the country’s reduction in CO2 emissions over the last decade and that

governments and markets need to pursue green energy with intent rather than luck (Robinson).

So, one must ask, “Is Biden’s aggressive agenda feasible?” This question was posed as

the subtitle to Karaim’s late 2021 report and the source that prompted this question was President

Bidens’s plan for a net-zero American economy by the year 2050 and reaching half of that goal

by the year 2030 (Karaim 4). Karaim’s report continues by citing energy production and
 Buford 6

consumption numbers among many nations including the United States who are responsible for

13% of mankind’s carbon emissions which is a lot when people consider that the population of

the U.S. is only 4% of the total global population (Karaim). Although the U.S. produces more

nuclear power than any country, there are in fact no plans at all to expand the amount of nuclear

power plants the United States needs to reach President Bidens’s 2050 goals. Nor are there any

phase out or sunset dates scheduled for fossil fuels; a question that is certainly begging to be

answered. Why?

Unfortunately, many countries from around the globe are hesitant in the pursuit of

Nuclear Power. In Japan for example, the figurative fallout from the partial meltdown at the

Fukushima nuclear facility still lingers in the minds of the Japanese population at large. While

once fielding an impressive fifty Nuclear power plants, after Fukushima, only nine remain in

operation. While the Central Government of Japan wishes to reinitialize the process, there

remains a stigma of danger over the word nuclear. This is especially troubling for global climate

goals as Japan recently pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2050 and currently the country relies

primarily on coal (Dooley). Aside from having to overcome the fear of so many nuclear power

plants running again, the Japanese central government also must contend with the rising need for

suitable and safe nuclear waste sites. The core of this latter controversy lies in a place called

Suttsu, a small Japanese town on the northern island of Hokkaido. The central government of

Japan has made an attempt to incentivize villages to volunteer and host scientific studies as

potential nuclear waste sites. Even with values as high as $18 million, the populace isn’t happy

about it and has even turned to violence on one reported occasion. The idea of the Japanese

government is to have an underground waste vault like Finland and Sweden, but the trouble with
 Buford 7

Japan is that the geological underbelly might not support or sustain such a vault without being

prone to the trembling of the pacific rim (Dooley).

While Japan still has its own troubles finding a suitable site, the U.S. Government can’t

seem to get any cooperation on finding nuclear waste storage sites either. According to this CQ

Researcher report titled “Managing Nuclear Waste” by Jennifer Weeks, the U.S. has also

conducted studies to find suitable locations that would be safe for the population but political

favors and deliberate disregard for the law has firmly blocked the process. Enacted by Congress

in the 1980’s, Yucca Mountain located in the Nevada desert was chosen as a permanent waste

storage site. Years of legislative work, construction, and research were thrown away when

President Obama ended the project allegedly due to backroom politics stemming from Nevada

residents and representatives' resistance to being a nuclear waste landfill. Perhaps the U.S. could

avoid political mayhem and borrow an idea from Japan and offer a large cash amount for states

or towns who might volunteer for studies to be conducted in their area as potential storage sites

(Weeks). Unfortunately, with political games afoot in U.S. government, the nuclear movement’s

progress is sure to be delayed.

On the bright side, countries like Sweden and Finland have shown that it is possible to

have safe nuclear waste storage sites. In this social analysis study from the Nuclear Technology

Journal, Thomas Kaiserfeld and Ame Kaijser acknowledge the country of Sweden’s political and

social history on dealing with this very same issue. The concluding and pivotal factor in

successfully securing a safe nuclear waste facility was to earn the trust and consent of the

governed. Reaching this goal took the Swedish government around three or so decades

(Kaiserfeld and Kaijser). In another paper published in the Science Journal Energetika, Ulf

Roßegger does an in-depth review of the Swedish nuclear power and waste disposal programs.
 Buford 8

Roßegger shares how safe Sweden’s nuclear waste storage plans are, how they work, and how

they could be copied and implemented across the globe. The basic premise is that once nuclear

fuel pellets reach the end of their life cycle, the cladding tube cylinder that contains them is

placed into a copper canister, which further entombs the radioactive material. The copper

canister is then taken 500 meters underground and placed into a buffering bed of bentonite clay,

which wicks any moisture towards the copper but prohibits the presence of oxygen so as to

protect the copper from corrosion and all while being encapsulated by bedrock (Roßegger 57-59;

Roßegger Fig. 3.). While public support continues to be the main element needed for nuclear

energy progress, Roßegger suggests volunteerism might not yield the most optimal disposal sites.

And while not yet complete, these proposed permanent nuclear waste storage sites paint a

hopeful picture for the future of nuclear energy (Roßegger 65). This leaves one thinking as to

why other governments are slow to adopt such campaigns. Perhaps such a campaign in America

would risk the security of the U.S. Petrodollar? Many elements appear to be at play here, but one

thing is for certain, the Swedish government proved that a concerted effort can make progress

over time. Demonstrated in the figure below Illustrates how safe and well thought out the

Swedish nuclear disposal plans are (Roßegger 57-59; Roßegger Fig. 3).
 Buford 9

Fig. 3. SKB’s method on final disposal [11]

Even though countries like Germany shut down most, if not all, of their nuclear power

plants after the events of Fukushima, this Washington Post article by Emily Rauhala shows that

the European Union (EU) policy may be moving back in the right direction. The piece highlights

the EU’s recent move to relabel natural gas and nuclear power as green energy regarding the

current tax incentive structure behind Europe’s move towards a carbon neutral economy. The EU

has no shortage of critics calling the move a detriment toward Europe's collective climate goals.

However, the EU council stands firm on their decision while pointing out that these steps are

necessary and lesser evils that must be undergone to sustain the EU’s economy during the

transition toward net-zero carbon by 2050. Rauhala points out that the European Parliament

could squash the move all together, but it is likely to pass (Rauhala). In addition to this article,

it’s relevant to point out that the rise of more recent tensions in the Ukraine with Russia, and

countries like Germany heavily relying on a Russian oil supply will likely speed up the decision-

making process on this specific proposal. The importance of this shift in policy within the EU

could be groundbreaking in supporting a realistic path towards green energy goals and further

allow nation states to become energy independent.

The case for nuclear energy is compelling when one considers that it’s nearly 100% CO2

emission free and according to the Nuclear Energy Institute “Uranium is an abundant metal and

is full of energy: One Uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons

of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas . . .” (Nuclear Energy Institute). Furthermore, the World

Nuclear Association says that in the year 2020 around 440 nuclear power plants produce 2,553 of

the 27,044 TWh of power globally. This figure may only represent roughly 10% of the world's

power output, but when the lack of carbon emissions and the kWh efficiency per gram of fuel is
 Buford 10

taken into consideration– the value of nuclear energy is a literal godsend and doesn’t receive

nearly enough credit.

Surprisingly, the United States leads the pack in the nuclear energy sector, which

according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration operates 55 nuclear power plants in 28

states. These nuclear power plants account for 778 billion kWh of the 4,116 billion kWh

produced or 18.9% of the U.S. energy market. Additionally, renewables like wind and solar

power only represent 826 Billion kWh or 20.1% of the U.S. energy market (U.S. Energy

Information Administration). But like Professor Andrew Dessler said during his interview with

Joe Rogan, “everybody who’s capable of tying their shoelaces knows that wind and solar are

intermittent.” While renewables like wind and solar are invaluable and should be the essential

backbone of any energy grid, many more nuclear power plants must be built to sustain these

intermittent gaps in power generation. However, it takes time to build nuclear power plants, a

large amount of capital, and a willingness of the government to do so.

What about fossil fuels? What actions can be taken now to reduce CO2 emissions? Let’s

begin by establishing some facts on fossil fuel energy production and carbon emissions. Coal

produces 25 million BTU per ton and emits 208,000 pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy

produced; Oil produces 5.78 million BTU per barrel but emits 164,000 pounds of CO2; natural

gas in liquid form produces 4.2 million BTU per barrel and emits 117,000 pounds of CO2. Why

are numbers and figures important? Well, where rhetoric fails, raw data and basic arithmetic

reigns supreme. The ratio and efficiency of CO2 pollution per fossil fuel type is critical. Because

constructing nuclear power plants will take extended periods of time, the public needs to

understand that certain fossil fuels will need to be promoted and even invested in during this

phase out period. While coal and oil can be very cheap depending on the availability, both
 Buford 11

respectively hold poor CO2 pollution ratios compared to natural gas. Efficiency can even be

graded on each fuel source with coal at 709 pounds, oil at 559 pounds, and natural gas at 399

pounds of CO2 per 1,000 kWh generated (Silverman). Let’s expand on this math by putting it

into perspective with U.S. Energy data from 2021; if coal produced 899 billion kWh, then it

equally emitted 637.4 billion pounds of CO2; meanwhile, the same amount of 899 billion kWh

produced by natural gas would only produce 358.7 billion pounds of CO2. Simple mathematics

makes investment into natural gas an obvious facilitator while solar, wind, and nuclear are

ramped up over the next few decades. Ultimately, these emission facts make the rejection of

natural gas extremely inconvenient.

While the developed world appears to be close to some of the more reasonable green

energy goals, the developing world remains leagues behind. Why is this so? Simply put, GDP

growth of the developing world is directly tied to trade agreements with developed nations and

fueled by the affordability of accessible fossil fuels (Ritchie and Roser Table 4; Dews and

O’Hanlon Fig. 1). When it comes to the rights of the developing world to grow and enter the

developed world economy, to take the position of fossil fuel revocation is immoral. It would be

far more advantageous to support developing economies towards producing and burning natural

gas while their own infrastructures industrialized enough to be able to support their own

production of renewables. Increased free trade agreements between the developed and

developing world that focus on technology and sharing in production processes for solar and

wind is how the world moves forward together without crushing the economies of the poorest

populations. For example, the fossil fuel consumption and increased trade frequency between the

West and the continent of Africa as a whole can be correlated below (Ritchie and Roser Table 4;

Dews and O’Hanlon Fig. 1). The developing world must be permitted to industrialize out of
 Buford 12

poverty, famine, and perpetual war in order to avoid global resources being diverted away from

the battle against climate change.

Table 4. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (Fossil Fuel Consumption Tool)

Fig. 1. Fred Dews and Julia O’Hanlon

 Buford 13

Africa is only being used here as a narrow example, but the emphasis on the developing

world is critical to this argument. According to the global climate change arm of NASA, current

data shows that CO2 levels have reached a record high of 418 ppm (parts per million) as of

February 2022 (Graph 1. Earth Science Communications Team at NASA). So, while the

developed world steadily decreases their dependence on fossil fuels and as their CO2 emissions

begin to level off and fall, the developing world continues to grow. This reasoning explains why

CO2 levels continue to rise and shouldn’t be used as an excuse to slow down green energy

initiatives, but rather bring a valuable perspective towards supporting more pragmatic and

realistic policy positions moving forward (Earth Science Communications Team at NASA).

Graph 1. Earth Science Communications Team at NASA

The stage is set, the world will not stop, global economies will continue to grow, and

human beings will continue to prosper. Therefore, influencing the world in the right direction is

crucial, but how does the free and developing world sustain this growth in a positive direction

and keep bad actors from disrupting the balance? This line of thought is very troubling when one

considers all the externalities of the green energy movement. Synonymous with the free trade
 Buford 14

liberal economic order is the free world democratic standard for peace. So, one must ponder on

the pessimistic side of dealing with hostile nations who are nuclear or aspire to be. Nations like

Russia who invade their neighbors and compromise the safety of their nuclear power plants

along with rogue nations like North Korea and Iran truly give the future of nuclear technology

unsure footing. Harrowing events like those that took place in Chernobyl, Ukraine in the 1980’s

come to mind, but even the corrupt USSR was able to put a cap on that worst case scenario.

The best path forward is for the free world to stand united in its principles, continue to

build relationships in the developing world, and adopt realistic and pragmatic policy positions to

forward the achievement of a global net or near zero carbon economy. The following proposals

may be seen as pie in the sky but represent this writer’s ideal list of pragmatic and necessary

steps towards making a real impact on climate change. These proposals are listed in order of

priority and are solely in accordance with the conclusions founded by this writer’s argument. For

the purposes of keeping these proposals flexible and modular, the subject of the proposals will be

referred to as “nation-state.” This list of proposals assumes that the subject referred to as “nation-

state” is listed as a developed country by the United Nations.

Proposal 1 goal: To plan and schedule a fossil fuel deletion program. Once natural gas

has completely replaced all other fossil fuels, natural gas should then take the place of fossil

fuels and be phased out with the onramp of renewables and nuclear power. Natural gas should

then be stored as an emergency backup fuel source only until a date that the technology is no

longer viable.

Proposal 1A: The nation-state shall invest in natural gas and decrease production of other

fossil fuels at an average rate of 2% of total power produced each year and on a 1:1 ratio.
 Buford 15

Meaning, as the nation-state increases the use of natural gas by 1 billion kWh, the nation-state

shall also decrease the use of other fossil fuels by an amount equal to 1 billion kWh.

Proposal 1B: For every 1 billion kWh of natural gas the nation-state is able to increase, so

shall the production of renewables increase at the same rate. Meaning the ratio of 1:1 for fossil

fuel exchange will now, by proxy, turn into a 2:1 ratio in favor of natural gas and renewables

over other fossil fuels.

Proposal 1C: The proposed energy exchange ratios shall be based on a projected output

from energy companies within the nation-state. These projections shall be reviewed every three

years and any failure of the nation-states energy conglomerates to adhere to the annual minimum

projection rates of 2% with an allowable 10% failure margin within said 2% shall pay

appropriate fines. Should said energy conglomerates be faced with the fines, the nation-state

shall direct all monies collected towards nuclear construction and waste management projects.

Proposal 2 goal: To direct the nation-state on how to move forward with nuclear power

projects. Additionally, how to morally approach, inform, and gain the consent of the public’s

participation.

Proposal 2A: All nation-state funding that was previously subsidizing fossil fuels or fossil

fuel research in regards to energy production, with the exception of natural gas, shall now fund

nuclear power plant construction and research instead.

Proposal 2B: The nation-state shall identify which regions within its borders are optimal

nuclear waste disposal sites. The nation-state shall open an application process for municipalities

and other regional governments to bid on research and experimental drilling grants. The funds

made available to potential regions should be appropriately large enough as to incentivize

participation.
 Buford 16

Proposal 2C: Once the most optimal sites have been identified and chosen, the

municipalities or other regional governments shall hold extended educational and informational

panels with subject matter experts so that the public can introduce any comments, questions, or

concerns. Once six such panels have been held within the municipality over a period of no more

than 3 months, the appropriate local government entity shall hold a popular or representative

vote in order to seek the consent of the governed.

Proposal 2D: Once the appropriate number of sites have been chosen for the nation-state,

construction on the underground nuclear waste storage facilities shall begin immediately.

Simultaneous to the beginning of construction, the nation-state shall provide the promised funds

to the appropriate local government. In addition to this, on the date that the first nuclear waste

container is deposited, the local population shall be paid a modest dividend as individuals on an

annual basis.

Proposal 3 goal: To examine and define the mitigation proposals in relation to a global

net or near zero economy by 2050. As well as examining and adopting appropriate climate

change adaptation strategies.

Proposal 3A: The number one climate goal of all nation-states shall be to push forward

the agenda based on the proposals and to lift up the developing world through free trade and

humanitarian principles.

Proposal 3B: The nation-state shall identify areas within their sovereign territory that

would be adversely affected by the IPCC’s worst-case scenario of a 3 degree Celsius increase

and a 3 foot sea level rise projected for the turn of the century. Appropriate seawall construction

and agricultural changes should be taken depending on the regional needs.

 Buford 17

Proposal 3C: All nation-states should set an appropriate amount of direct humanitarian

aid along with monetary support for developing nations that cannot afford to establish the

climate adaptation measures from their GDP alone.

The question has been asked, the thesis has been analyzed, and now solutions have been

proposed. When it comes to climate change, policy makers are generally, but not always,

oblivious on how to deal with climate policy. Additionally, policy makers are generally ignorant

on how individual energy production processes work and how much energy and pollution they

each produce. Consequently, average citizens are often pitted against one another by

hyperpolarized ideological camps. These ideological thought camps tend to ramp up the

extremes on both sides. And these extremes get propped up in the media, but in reality, these are

fringe group-think ideas like climate change denial or calling for an end to all fossil fuels

overnight, which the latter would kill tens of millions in the same span of time. Most normal

people want a pragmatic approach that won’t bring radical change or hardship to their standard

of living. Therefore, it’s important to talk about the raw data and numbers surrounding energy

production, carbon emissions, and economic impact; fundamentally it’s even more important that

people not rely on talking points and rhetoric from politicians and bobble-head-pundits.

After going through the data on what it takes to achieve net-zero carbon emission, it has

become very clear the goal is possible. However, there are so many varying attitudes on policy

positions that one’s head could simply spin off in the absence of common sense. In closing, it’s

important to remember that the best way forward is somewhere in the middle and that both sides

of the debate make valid points. Nuclear energy offers massive benefits in the fight against

climate change but can only become a real-world solution when nation-states are ready to fully

adopt it. Along with a pragmatic fossil fuel deletion schedule where economies and world
 Buford 18

governments invest in natural gas while renewables ramp up to a point where all fossil fuels are

no longer viable. Both climate mitigation and climate adaptation must also be pursued and

especially in low-lying developing countries where the loss of life could be the greatest. The

safety and prosperity of all humanity should be the forethought of all free nations and to

paraphrase the Irish Canadian pioneer Nelson Henderson, “The true meaning of life is to plant

trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit (Henderson).” And finally, the most pragmatic

takeaway from this argument, whether one agrees with its premise or not, is that the free world

stands firm in its principles and aspires to be the venerable progenitors that future generations

justly deserve.
 Buford 19

Works Cited

Copenhagen Consensus Center. “Climate Change & Energy.” CCC,

https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/research-topic/climate-change-energy.

Accessed 3 March 2022.

Dessler, Andrew E. Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Third ed.,

Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Dews, Fred, and Julia O'Hanlon. “Charts of the Week: Economic trends in developing

countries.” Brookings Institute, 22 February 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/

blog/brookings-now/2019/02/22/charts-of-the-week-economic-trends-in-

developing-countries/. Accessed 31 March 2022.

Dooley, Ben. “Toxic Legacy for Nuclear Energy Lingers a Decade After Fukushima.”

New York Times, 11 March 2021, p. B1(L). Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A654530800/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=

bookmark-OVIC&xid=9cb1d961. Accessed 02 March 2021.

Earth Science Communications Team at NASA. “Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs –

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” NASA Climate Change, NASA,

February 2022, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/.

Accessed 2 March 2022.

Henderson, Wes. Under Whose Shade: A Story of a Pioneer in the Swan River Valley of

Manitoba. Nepean, Ontario, Wes Henderson & Associates, 1986. Canadian

Materials by The Manitoba Library Association,

https://www.cmreviews.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol16no6/revunderwhoseshade.html.

Accessed 31 March 2022.

 Buford 20

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2022: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability | Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability.” IPCC, February 2022, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.

Accessed 27 March 2022.

Kaiserfeld, Thomas, and Ame Kaijser. “Changing the System Culture: Mobilizing the

Social Sciences in the Swedish Nuclear Waste System.” Nuclear Technology, vol.

207, no. 9, 2021, pp. 1456-1468. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2020.1832815. Accessed 27 March 2022.

Karaim, Reed. “Clean Energy Transition.” CQ Researcher, vol. 31, no. 40, 12 Nov. 2021,

pp. 1-30. library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2021111200.

Accessed 03 March 2022.

Koonin, Steven E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't,

and Why It Matters. BenBella Books, 2021.

Nuclear Energy Institute. “Nuclear Fuel.” Nuclear Energy Institute, 2022,

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-fuel. Accessed 29 March 2022.

Rauhala, Emily. “E.U. plans to label natural gas, nuclear energy "green."”

Washington Post, 02 March 2022. EBSCOhost,

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=nfh&AN=wapo.005bae3a-845d-11ec-8319-

de6effcde01c&site=ehost-live. Accessed 02 March 2022.

Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “Fossil Fuels.” Fossil Fuel Consumption Tool, Our

World in Data, 08 July 2021, https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels.

Accessed 31 March 2022.

 Buford 21

Robinson, Peter. “Cost-Effective Approaches to Save the Environment, with Bjorn

Lomborg.” YouTube, Hoover Institute at Stanford University, 4 March 2019,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=5QyXduteiWE&ab_channel=HooverInstitution. Accessed 3 March 2022.

Rogan, Joe. “#1776 Steven E. Koonin.” The Joe Rogan Experience, [Podcast] Spotify, 11

February 2022, https://open.spotify.com/episode/76RdMG5Tne7H9jaP7 mhkdk?

si=EalVpcvSSe-REZkoA_MQGw&utm_source=copy-link.

Accessed 28 March 2022.

Rogan, Joe. “#1777 - Andrew Dessler.” The Joe Rogan Experience, [Podcast] Spotify, 16

February 2022, https://open.spotify.com/episode/5SvYrFlHAU2QbGam Jebp3B?

si=3gNEMBqZQLecIi-dU2-bdw&utm_source=copy-link.

Accessed 28 March 2022.

Roßegger, Ulf. “Programme Elements of Swedish Nuclear Waste Management –

Implementing with What Results?” Energetika, vol. 60, no. 1, 2014, pp. 54-68.

EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=

a9h&AN=95971633&site=eds-live. Accessed 29 March 2022.

Silverman, Dennis. Energy Units and Conversions. U.C. Irvine, Physics and Astronomy,

https://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/units.html. Accessed 02 March 2022.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) –

US Energy Information Administration.” EIA, U.S. EIA, 2020,

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3. Accessed 2 March 2022.

 Buford 22

Weeks, Jennifer. “Managing Nuclear Waste.” CQ Researcher, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011, pp.

73-96.

https://library-cqpress-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/cqresearcher/document .php?

id=cqresrre2011012800&type=hitlist&num=3. Accessed 27 March 2022.

World Nuclear Association. “Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs.”

Economics of Nuclear Power, World Nuclear Association, September 2021,

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-

nuclear-power.aspx. Accessed 29 March 2022.

World Nuclear Association. “Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy.” Nuclear Power in

the World Today, World Nuclear Association, March 2022, https://world-

nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-

the-world-today.aspx. Accessed 29 March 2022.