It may seem unlikely, but if environmentalists are right, Donald Trump could save the planet.
How is this possible? Many environmentalists claim that the most important environmental danger facing humanity is global warming. Global warming, in turn, is primarily caused by CO2 release when we burn fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to power our cars, heat our homes, and power our factories. Therefore, the only way to reduce global warming is to reduce the release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel.
However, efforts to reduce energy use significantly have largely been futile. And India, China, and Africa are rapidly developing, and are ravenous for energy. They'll likely pick whichever fuel source is least expensive, which is often coal. So, if the status quo continues, global CO2 release is on track to increase over the next 50 years, leading to sea level rise, chaos in weather systems, drought, species loss, and many other problems.
Now, most partisans within the Trump administration are skeptical of global warming doomsday scenarios. But they don't have to believe! Fortunately, the Trump administration can do the right thing (from an environmental perspective) for entirely different reasons.
Because the Trump administration _does_ care about creating new jobs, growing the economy, reducing regulation, and helping US companies create new markets overseas.
Therefore, the Trump administration can do something that a Democratic administration would have difficulty doing: foster a nation-wide switch to nuclear power.
Using 1970's technology, US nuclear power plants produce energy at a cost lower than all but a few sources (hydro, geothermal, and natural gas). If new nuclear plants were allowed to be built, with better, more modern technology, the cost of nuclear energy would be even lower.
In addition, nuclear power is safer than other energy sources, relies on abundant fuel sources, can be sited anywhere, and is available 24/7.
Thus, by fostering nuclear power development in the US, a coalition of environmentalists and the Trump administration could
1) Dramatically reduce CO2 production in the US
2) Create jobs/markets for US worker and companies
3) Dramatically reduce CO2 production/air pollution globally, by exporting nuclear power technology to rapidly developing countries
But will environmentalists work with Trump? Probably not. Politics is driven much more by irrational tribal affiliations than rational analysis. But they have a golden opportunity, if only they'll take it.
"The effects of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant grow by the week, creating a lengthening catalogue of worries and proving once again that nuclear power frightens people as few other technologies do.
But when the dead and sickened are added up, how dangerous is it really?
The partial meltdown in Japan has injured 23 people and exposed as many as 21 to levels of radiation higher than is considered safe to receive in one year. Two workers are still missing but are assumed to have been killed by the earthquake or tsunami, not the nuclear accident. No people in the “plume zone” outside the plant have been contaminated to a degree that is expected to affect their health, based on radiation readings so far.
More on nuclear power safety here:
In the months after the world’s worst nuclear disaster, in Chernobyl in 1986, about 50 people died. In the next-biggest accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979, no one did.
History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents.
Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.
Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html
How is this possible? Many environmentalists claim that the most important environmental danger facing humanity is global warming. Global warming, in turn, is primarily caused by CO2 release when we burn fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to power our cars, heat our homes, and power our factories. Therefore, the only way to reduce global warming is to reduce the release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel.
However, efforts to reduce energy use significantly have largely been futile. And India, China, and Africa are rapidly developing, and are ravenous for energy. They'll likely pick whichever fuel source is least expensive, which is often coal. So, if the status quo continues, global CO2 release is on track to increase over the next 50 years, leading to sea level rise, chaos in weather systems, drought, species loss, and many other problems.
Now, most partisans within the Trump administration are skeptical of global warming doomsday scenarios. But they don't have to believe! Fortunately, the Trump administration can do the right thing (from an environmental perspective) for entirely different reasons.
Because the Trump administration _does_ care about creating new jobs, growing the economy, reducing regulation, and helping US companies create new markets overseas.
Therefore, the Trump administration can do something that a Democratic administration would have difficulty doing: foster a nation-wide switch to nuclear power.
Using 1970's technology, US nuclear power plants produce energy at a cost lower than all but a few sources (hydro, geothermal, and natural gas). If new nuclear plants were allowed to be built, with better, more modern technology, the cost of nuclear energy would be even lower.
In addition, nuclear power is safer than other energy sources, relies on abundant fuel sources, can be sited anywhere, and is available 24/7.
Thus, by fostering nuclear power development in the US, a coalition of environmentalists and the Trump administration could
1) Dramatically reduce CO2 production in the US
2) Create jobs/markets for US worker and companies
3) Dramatically reduce CO2 production/air pollution globally, by exporting nuclear power technology to rapidly developing countries
But will environmentalists work with Trump? Probably not. Politics is driven much more by irrational tribal affiliations than rational analysis. But they have a golden opportunity, if only they'll take it.
"The effects of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant grow by the week, creating a lengthening catalogue of worries and proving once again that nuclear power frightens people as few other technologies do.
But when the dead and sickened are added up, how dangerous is it really?
The partial meltdown in Japan has injured 23 people and exposed as many as 21 to levels of radiation higher than is considered safe to receive in one year. Two workers are still missing but are assumed to have been killed by the earthquake or tsunami, not the nuclear accident. No people in the “plume zone” outside the plant have been contaminated to a degree that is expected to affect their health, based on radiation readings so far.
More on nuclear power safety here:
In the months after the world’s worst nuclear disaster, in Chernobyl in 1986, about 50 people died. In the next-biggest accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979, no one did.
History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents.
Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.
Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html