Green jubilation...

...will be short lived as the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors are brought under control. What will become more apparent as time goes by is the difference between Chernobyl, where safety procedures were absent and where reactor design (rejected by the UK in the 1950's) was inadequate, and this incident, where one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded has tested emergency procedure to the limit.

In Japan, as in Christchurch last month countless heroes are emerging from the devastation. I salute them all.

When reconstruction and reappraisal begins to take place, nuclear energy will come under the spotlight like never before. This time however, unlike Chernobyl, green fear-mongering will be tempered by the pragmatic reality of nuclear versus coal/wind/ solar energy sources. And when the Michael Moore's of the left have had their say, nuclear energy will be seen to have survived with its safety reputation intact. For up to date information and comment re reactor status, see Brave New Climate here...

And as for wind farms...well, courtesy of PKH, this startling news ...According to researchers at the University of St Andrews, the sound of offshore wind farms is likely to mess with the whales’ sensitive sonar systems and drive them ashore, where they get stuck on beaches and die. More here...and the original press release here...

Windfarms KILL WHALES...buy the T shirt !

The green dilemma...

...revolves around the provision of safe, secure, cheap energy supplies. The fundamentalist red/greens (the ideological force behind the green church,) hate the idea of abundant, cheap and safe energy, hence their laughable and ludicrous "precautionary principle" . Their vision of humankind is that we are all programmable socialist robots at best, at worst a cancer on mother earth. However, deeper thinkers within the green and Labour movements see green socialism/nihilism as an albatross around their collective necks. For example, Tom Harris UK Labour MP, writes on his blog... for some...environmentalists the fight against global warming has another aim: the defeat of capitalism, of economic growth, of prosperity.Which is why I find their arguments so nauseating...(Tom, which green/left faction is the most "progressive" ?)

The differentiating point between red/green socialists and genuine environmentalists is their respective attitude to nuclear energy. Within the left, the argument has forced an ideological split. In Germany the Fundi's hate the pro-nuclear Realo's leading to a dysfunctional environmental movement. On the blogosphere the war rages on... Check this out and the entertaining comments/argument after it...

...Modern reactors are incredibly safe, with physics-based 'passive' safety systems requiring no user-operated or mechanical control to shut down the reaction. Indeed, a certification assessment for the 'Generation III+' Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) put the risk of a core meltdown as severe as the one which occurred at Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 at once every 29 million years. For reference, the TMI incident resulted in no deaths. Similarly, comparing the inherently unsafe Chernobyl reactor design to an ESBWR is a bit like comparing an army revolver to a water gun. Fast spectrum reactors, also known as 'Generation IV', are able to use 99.5 per cent of the energy in uranium. There is enough energy in already-mined uranium and stored plutonium from existing stockpiles to supply all the world's power needs for over a century before we even need to mine any more uranium. Once we do start mining again, there is enough energy in proven uranium deposits to supply the entire world for at least 50,000 years. Fast reactors can be used to burn all existing reserves of plutonium and the waste stream of the past and present generation of thermal reactors...more here...

The international green movement...

...will ultimately fall apart. Its disparate factions have already begun to tear away at each other, as zealots in any religion do. Their infighting will shatter the anti-capitalist, self hatred consensus that holds them together in a fragile peace...
Listen carefully, and the Pythonesque cries of "splitter" are clearly audible here...
The argument and division centres around nuclear energy. The German greens have already shown us that the fundamental wing cannot abide the realistic (pro-nuclear) faction.Finnish greens have entered into coalition with pro-nuclear parties (more here) and...
this from Mark Lynas of The Independent, and
this from James Lovelock ,
this from Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy,
.and much more, here...and
Energy spokesperson Moglen of Greenpeace believes support of nuclear power by environmentalists risks undermining the broader agenda of the green movement. "With all respect to [nuclear converts], they should not be held up as the middle, they should be held up as the periphery," said Moglen. "We should not be sidetracked into talking about nuclear. It's irreverent (sic)in the climate change debate."

The calm before the election...

...precedes turmoil after it. In NZ, John Key is coy about his attitude to the economic costs of decreasing our "carbon footprint". In the USA, John McCain is an orthodox global warming believer...for now. After the elections, will Key and McCain be quite as Kyoto compliant?

The attitude of the developed world (and I have to include NZ here)to nuclear energy is the key to decoding the signals from leaders in waiting. Our anti-nuclear hysteria is on the wane at last, and some rational debate may follow our November elections. In the USA I wonder whether Al Gore's visions will drive policy, or will economic and environmental common sense take over. Check this out from Reason...