James Lovelock has endorsed nuclear power.

It will be interesting to see if this creates a major schism in the watermelon community. This was always the rational position for environmentalists to take, if they really believed that carbon release was harmful, but environmentalists have rarely been rational. Either that, or they had some...other...agenda.

Actually, Lovelock has been advocating nuclear energy since at least 2000.

Most EnviroWackos I know aren't into well thought out positions, prefering to use their empathatic glands to support things like banning DHMO

http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/

But, actually there is a logically consistant enviro position that is against nukes and oil and alleged human-caused global warming. That is that anything human related (nuke or oil or farming etc. etc.) is anti-nature and thus something to be against. This is the true philosophical core of "green" arguments. Taken to its extreme, and logical conclusion it leads to advocating mass die offs of HUMANS.

Truly a very silly, silly proposition, but that's the basis of every "green" argument -- the snail darter is more important than the person's house or job it displaces.

I'd like to see more normal everyday folks like me band together and say: "No, preserving every species is not a good idea. I'd rather have more jobs, more freedom to do what I want with my own private property and more attention to human wants, desires and needs than to absurb notions of "saving the environment". (That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one)

Yet anothat small step in ending the social disease of radiophobia. Like I always say... More Nukes, Less Kooks!!

- Eric.

The guru becomes the heretic. Imagine the Catholics burning the Pope at the stake.

The sad thing is that this is news. One of my primary (but not only) tests when reading or listening to someone talking about the danger of global warming is if they advocate nuclear power as a partial solution. Especially if they take a dire view of global warming, they should be a strong advocate. If they aren’t, it suggests they haven’t studied the subject well, or are speaking emotionally. If they were consistent, some of the things I’d expect to be advocated are:

A massive increase in research on global warming - along with control methods - with no inherent assumptions.

Hugely expanded energy research focusing on solar, advanced nuclear, advanced power storage, transmission, and efficiency/conservation.

Rapid development of nuclear power along with shutting down fossil fuel plants and subsidies for increased conservation.

Here in Finland the most famous environmentalist is a guy who actually says that he is in favour of anything that kills humans, and is hoping for something like a worldwide epidemic of superinfluenza that would kill off most of us. Then the survivors could go back to living on small farms and stop interfering with the natural order of things. Well, at least he is honest.