Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

So here is the unbelievable full post yesterday from the National Review’s anti-climate-action website, Planet Gore:

The Nuclear Option [Drew Thornley]
In his Sunday interview on Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Sen. Barack Obama about his position on nuclear energy:

Russert: In terms of climate change, global warming, you’ve talked about wind and solar and biofuels. What about nuclear? All — in all realistic assessment, don’t we need more nuclear power in order to wean ourselves off of those same fuels that are contaminating the world?

Obama: I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we’ve got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they’re secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has — it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns. So it has not been an effective option. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be an effective option, but we’re going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there’s no silver bullet. We’ve got to be — we’ve, we’ve got to look at every possible option.

Hmm . . . So does Obama feel every energy option is on the table (like, say, extracting known but currently off-limits domestic oil reserves) or just non-fossil fuel options?

First off, Obama’s comments on nukes are exceedingly well-informed, unlike, say, John McCain’s (See “McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants (and seven Yucca mountains) costing $4 trillion.”).

Second, what closing comment by Planet Gore could possibly be more inane?

Russert was explicitly asking Obama “In terms of climate change, global warming … to wean ourselves off of those same fuels that are contaminating the world.”

Note to PG: Yes, if the goal is to wean ourselves from the fuels that are contaminating the world, then, yes, duh, gimme a break … obviously currently off-limits domestic oil reserves are not on the table.

I have not bothered to debunk PG recently, since they publish this kind of nonsense every day. But they made it into the WSJ’s excellent Environmental Capital blog today (here), so I thought I would see if they had reformed their ways. Silly me!

Related Posts:

• New Feature: Planet Gore Disinfotainment Watch [PGDW]
  
• Planet Gore Disinfotainment Watch #2: The Misleading Paraphrase
• PGDW#3: Let the Disinfotainment Begin!
• PGDW#4: Utterly Misrepresenting Research
• PGDW#5: Claiming Climate Mitigation must be Regressive
• PGDW#6: Smearing Stern
• Bush’s Dumb Luck on Emissions & PGDW#7
• PGDW#8: THE BIG LIE–Magical Pollution Reduction
• PGDW#9: Defending NASA’s Griffin
• PGDW#10 – #31: Corn Ethanol
• PGDW#32 & 33: If Dogbert is Anti-Green …
• Planet Gore Shocker of the Month
• Planet Gore gets the little things wrong, too
• Planet Gore Wrong on CAFE Rebound Effect
• Nonplussed at Planet Gore
• “Leading” geologist has rocks in his head
• PG Howlers: Henry Ford invented the gas engine–and that engine couldn’t run biofuels

Share

   Print

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 at 10:00 am and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.