Conscious Choice: Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

March 2005 | Choice Feedback

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

As one of the original modern environmental activists since around the first “Earth Day” (April 22, 1970), I became opposed to nuclear power then (and everything since has reinforced my opposition to it). The terrific views of Helen Caldicott and Dave Kraft (“The New Nuclear Debate,” Feb.) represent the continuing main pro-environmental consensus that nuclear power is a “big loser” anyway you look at it. By contrast, the “pro-nuclearism” by James Lovelock is extremely long on rhetoric and very short on reason. The European-based Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy sounds like nothing but a big joke.

In “Transitioning to a Renewable Energy Future,” the recent white paper written by Dr. Donald Aitken, a physicist and solar consultant, for the International Solar Energy Society: It is reasonable to target an 18.5 percent penetration of renewable energy technologies into the “global energy mix” by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050 to provide our total primary energy (all energy uses). These are goals practically identical to the worldwide … total primary energy usage goal target” for renewable resources from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to stabilize carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Given the current growth rates of the renewable energy industries and projections of their capability to achieve aggressive growth targets in the future, we can set long-term goals for a global renewable energy transition and have confidence that we can accomplish them. By doing this, we will stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide (the primary “greenhouse gas” contributing to global warming) — and, therefore, stabilize the Earth’s surface temperature. — Dennis R. Nelson, Chicago, Ill.

More Local News, Please
THE FEB. issue is the best Conscious Choice issue yet. I really enjoy the practical information of the cover story, restaurant reviews and saving the #11 bus, etc.

The magazine should focus more on local, personal interest stories (#11 bus) and local businesses...stuff I, as the reader and consumer really would benefit from. — Kevin, Chicago

Pet Food Check
I JUST wanted to thank you for your informative article in the (Feb. issue about pet foods.) After reading it I checked the label on my cat’s food and found several of the no-no’s like “chicken meal” and “beet pulp” listed. What a surprise! Here I thought by purchasing a “natural” brand that is more expensive I was doing my pet a favor. I absolutely adore my cat and hate to think my ignorance could hurt her in any way. — Rachelle Pakes, La.

Getting Beyond Ritalin
“I REALLY loved the piece “Beyond Ritalin” in Conscious Choice ’s (Jan. issue.) A lot of our frustration as parents can stem from being made to feel as if our children are management issues in the schools as opposed to kids who need appropriate treatments. ADHD kids need a different type of communication with the schools and it is important to investigate all treatment options when it comes to our kids. Thanks for running this important article. — Shay Robertson, Northbrook, Ill.

Pet Pain
THANK YOU for writing your (Jan.) article (on pet pain). It was very enlightening. I am going to pass a copy of it on to all of my friends with pets. Ironically, I had someone come to my house just days before I read your article — she was here to clean my cat’s teeth without anesthesia — and she told me … what she had read. The information is definitely an eye opener. — Marianne Borselle, Internet

Air Drying
ON THE Going Green (Coop America, Jan. 05) article: With your laundry, as far as energy use, the biggest “thing” is to dry your clothes without a dryer. In the summer obviously they can go outside. In the winter many people use a humidifier and at the same time dry clothes in a dryer. Using a humidity gauge, we have been hanging clothes inside. Our drying also makes the clothes last longer. — B. Boone, Chicago

Silent Sports Fan
THE DEC. Silent Sports Cover story was a beautiful article.... The spirit of winter and wilderness begot a dream in me to someday open a ski shop. We opened a little backpacking shop instead.

During our first winter we introduced cross-country skiing. On Sunday we would close the store and Jean and I and the kids would head for the lake in the national park just an hour east of Redding. I would lead an county-county ski lesson. During the lesson I would end it with a short tour. During the tour I would ask everyone to hold perfectly still and listen and breathe in the silence and the beauty. I loved the article and the message within. — Ben Maddox, Redding, Calif.

Splenda Not So Sweet
NOW THAT Splenda is found in thousands of products it’s time to think twice about using a lot of it, especially if you’re a diabetic. Splenda has spent millions advertising it as “made from sugar,” implying that it’s natural.

If I were diabetic and looking for products to cut sugar I would think Splenda is OK, especially since it was approved by the fda and it can be used for baking — which means you would be using a lot more of it than saccharine products.

Problem is, there aren’t any long-term health studies conducted by anyone who isn’t profiting from Splenda. If you’re eating a lot of it, I would really think twice. — Name withheld upon request, Chicago

Bush Policy Destroys Forests
AS THE Forest Service prepares to celebrate 100 years of managing the National Forests, now is a good moment to reflect on what has happened under its stewardship, what we’ve learned over the past century, and how we can better protect and restore the National Forests over the next 100 years.

America’s National Forests are a national treasure, but over the past century, most of the forests have been developed with logging roads, clearcuts and drilling operations and 95 percent of the old growth forests have been destroyed. Sadly, under the leadership of former timber industry lobbyist Mark Rey, the Bush administration plans to continue these trends.

There is a better alternative — one putting the well-being of our children and grandchildren first — that will ensure the National Forests are managed in a sustainable manner. Tremendous common ground exists that key areas of the National Forests, such as old growth, roadless areas, municipal watersheds and endangered species habitat should be protected. Based on the millions of public comments submitted during the roadless area ruling making process, we know that the public strongly supports protecting these special areas.

There is also widespread support for a program of removing flammable trees and brush near homes and communities and addressing critical restoration needs such as road maintenance, invasive species control and endangered species restoration. This vision of the future for our National Forests provides sustainable jobs in rural communities to carry out needed work while putting an end to the controversy and conflict the administration’s current course will inflict on us.

It is very heartening to hear Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth recently announce at a regional Centennial event that his agency will shift its focus away from logging towards recreation, fuel reduction and ecological restoration all of which he views as the future of the National Forests and Forest Service management. However, it is apparent that the Bush administration, which has received millions of dollars in timber industry campaign contributions, does not share the Chief’s view.

Over the last four years we have seen a remarkable step backward, away from publicly supported Forest Service plans to protect critical areas of the National Forests, in favor of new policies that promote abuses to our shared public resources. These policies ignore critical values such as fiscal responsibility, public participation, wildlife conservation, and water quality and call into question whether there will be a forest legacy left for future generations.

The most recent assaults threaten to undo two of the Forest Service’s most important conservation achievements, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule protecting undeveloped forests and a Reagan administration requirement to maintain wildlife populations. And, under the new forest planning regulations that grant the agency nearly unlimited discretion unfettered by public concerns or science, much of the progress toward sustainability provided by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 will also be undone.

Other positive steps to reduce logging of our remaining old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest and to protect wildlife in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains have been seriously undermined by this administration. And energy development is also being promoted in inappropriate places including roadless areas and critical wildlife habitat.

Instead of protection, restoration and a balanced management approach, it appears the agency is rapidly reverting to industry-biased policies from decades past that made logging and drilling the highest priorities, with everything else being a mere afterthought. Old growth forests, roadless areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, watersheds, and recreation areas are all currently on the chopping block under orders from the Bush administration.

The economics of this extraction agenda are disastrous. Forest Service analysts and outside economists have concluded that the dollar value of recreation, clean water, and fish and wildlife on the National Forests, far exceed the value of cutting down the trees. In addition, the timber sale program continues to lose money each year. The last reliable estimates indicate that money-losing timber sales cost taxpayers over $300 million a year. Subsidies continue for new road construction on the National Forests, which makes little sense given the existing $10 billion road maintenance backlog.

It would be great if Chief Bosworth’s rhetoric matched the reality on the ground, but unfortunately it is not even close. Now would be a good time for him to start speaking out against administration policies that undermine this vision for sustainable management. Otherwise, the future of the National Forests won’t be much different than the past: continued degradation of the land, while the public fights the Forest Service every step of the way.

If Chief Bosworth’s vision of a restoration century is to be achieved, we must immediately stop forest degradation and expedite forest protection and restoration. Our children deserve no less. — Steve Holmer, Unified Forest Defense Campaign, Washington, D.C.

Media Consolidation Battle Expands
MY THANKS to Conscious Choice for increasing coverage of media issues, particularly the Jan. 2005 issue.

I wanted to bring to your attention another, fairly urgent, media-themed issue,that could impact you and everyone in Illinois.

The Illinois Telecommunications Act, the state law that governs policy pertaining to telecom and the internet, is planned to undergo a rewrite in 2005. Legislation looks to be introduced soon, with work planned in the current general assembly and poised to end in May.

Though many questions are likely to be raised, the main issue might be that of control. Will communities be able to create their own technological infrastructure based on community needs and desires and timetables? Or will communities be dependent on giant telecom companies like SBC and Verizon, whose primary concern is profit and less to community service? — Mitchell Szczepanczyk, Chicago Media Action, 866-260-7198

Rock Radio was Bad at Start
AS A 61-year-old rocker who has lived in Chicago his entire life, I had to laugh at Barbara Iverson’s (Jan.) article suggesting that radio here took a turn for the worse relatively recently due to “ownership consolidation.” Rock radio in this city has sucked big time ever since 1972 — that’s 33 years ago — when the Elliot-Abrams “Superstar” format replaced free-form radio on the FM band.

This is when the monotonous repetition began: The “Top Tunes by Top Artists.” And, it all isn’t simply a matter of generalized “homogenization” now. There are a variety of formats covering different decades, but the play lists within each format are extremely limited. Each one has its own version of the old superstar format. And it’s all as boring as hell. Maybe I should be grateful to crappy Chicago radio, though. In self-defense it forced me to put together what I consider to be an outstanding rock record collection. — Someone with a sense of history and a willingness to program himself instead of relying upon others to do it for him.

Heading in the Wrong Direction
PAUL HAWKEN’S welcome article on socially-responsible (SR) mutual funds (“Is Your Money Where Your Heart Is? The Truth About sri Mutual Funds,” Conscious Choice, Oct. 2004) has stimulated a debate that seems headed in the wrong direction. SR mutual fund defenders respond to Hawken by arguing that the SR investment industry is doing the best it can within the limitations of the existing system. Missing from this discussion is an examination of equity investing as an effective model for promoting socially-responsible business.

If we seek to identify a just approach to funding worthy enterprises, we should look to fixed-income investments. Loans, notes, and bonds allow investors to know at the outset what return to expect from the investment, while borrowers understand what is required of them to fulfill their obligation. The advantage of debt-financing for socially-responsible business owners is that they maintain control over organizational values and operational approach. Socially-responsible investors could exercise an activist influence by attaching conditions under which the loan is granted. These conditions, or covenants, could stipulate matters central to socially-responsible business practice.

Unlike mutual fund investments, few opportunities exist to invest in loans or bonds that support social enterprises. Why? Underwriting loans is more comprehensive and costly than underwriting stock offerings. To cover these greater costs, global finance intermediaries typically engage in very large transactions (in the $1 billion range) that generate the greatest earnings per transaction. Social enterprises requiring financing from tens of thousands to several million dollars are too small to participate.

Investment opportunities in SR fixed-income vehicles are limited currently by the lack of social finance infrastructure to enable investors to rate, transfer, and help keep their investments liquid, and which could help to funnel investor dollars to social enterprises too small to participate in the global finance marketplace. Work is already starting to create such structures.

The broad benefits of sri will be achieved, not by promoting the particular instruments of one aspect of the investment market, but by the broad education of socially-responsible investors. The financial marketplace is dense and complex. Truly responsible actions will result when we understand exactly what our money does when it’s not stored in our mattresses. Thanks to Dragonfly for creating this forum for education and discussion. — Rupert Ayton and Stephanie L. Sarver, Center for the Development of Social Finance, San Mateo, Calif. © 2005 Center for the Development of Social Finance.

Rupert Ayton and Stephanie L. Sarver are the founders of the Center for the Development of Social Finance (CDSF), a non-profit organization fiscally sponsored by the Rudolf Steiner Foundation (RSF). Mr. Ayton previously was the chief financial officer of RSF, which also is a supporter of Dragonfly Media. CDSF is working to create the formation of a social finance infrastructure to increase funding to social enterprises.

This is an excerpt. To read the full text and more of the ongoing SRI debate, click here.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: