2 Comments

  1. Jupiter Sen

    Thank you, a lucid and balanced attempt at addressing the issues raised in this book. I have read it and I agree that’s it’s something of a campaign document, and in the areas in which I have some (little) knowledge confirms much of what I’ve gleaned, especially about the efficiency and impact up and down stream of renewables’. I had already radically changed my view of nuclear from soft anti to fervent pro, once I had understood a bit more and actually looked at some of the statistics, so he was preaching to the converted in my case.

    I agree with you that it is several books in one, from folksy anecdotalism through to conservation, development science, energy science policy and philosophy, psychology and sociology, and could probably be torn apart by an academic expert in any one of those domains. So your view of it as a polemical work I think is valid. One thing though – I think you don’t touch on – and what I think partly drives his zeal, is the subtext that the ‘green’ movement has been infiltrated and suborned by interests which are using it to further their own agendas, cynically or otherwise. He speaks occasionally of conflicts of interest and hypocrisy, particularly, from memory, about California energy policy. This is tricky territory, needing solid evidence chains, to avoid the taint of conspiracy theory.

    The American political landscape is so polarized that sometimes just criticizing something in your own camp is tantamount to treason. I have recently had something of a falling out with an Australian friend who will not accept my view of nuclear and can’t understand it. I point out to him that France where I live has a lower co2 emissions rate than Australia and stands fourth apparently in the world, certainly lower than anti nuclear Germany, but he does not for the moment compute that. An uncomplicated conflation of carbon emission reduction and anti nuclearism is legitimate in his view. Not in mine. I’m not in the nuclear business by the way.

    Thanks for the article

  2. Jon Brouwer

    Thank you for the detailed review! This was wonderful.

    Do you think the book is accurate in dismissing apocalyptic climate scenarios in the next 100-200 years?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *