300+ groups write: “It is simply not feasible for nuclear power to be a part of a sustainable, safe and affordable future for humankind.”
Continuing our discussion of nuclear energy, Steve Ongerth of the IWW says it’s no coincidence that many of the same forces that are fighting to deny climate change and hold back renewables are also pushing nuclear power.
Continuing our discussion on atomic energy. Chris Williams says nuclear is no solution to global warming — it’s dangerous, expensive, and can’t be deployed quickly enough.
Michael Friedman says our primary task is not to offer technological solutions to capitalist ills, but to offer social solutions that incorporate the technologies most amenable to our social goals. Nuclear doesn’t fit the bill.
A new report shows why an energy revolution is needed, and identifies the powerful forces that stand in the way.
A contribution to an important debate. Is nuclear power essential or an unacceptable threat?
“Oil companies do not operate for the purpose of producing oil. They operate for the purpose of producing maximum profit. To solve the energy crisis, we have to reorganize our economic system.”
The Lac-Mégantic disaster shows once again that capitalists are self-interested, uncaring, anti-social actors, not worthy of presumptions in their favor.
Federico Fuentes: The government of Latin America’s poorest country is taking natural resources out of the hands of multinationals, and using that wealth to fight poverty
Energy is far too important to our future to be left in the hands of corporate directors and investment bankers.
“This action is in defence of the global commons, which are under sustained attack by polluting fossil fuel companies”
Over half of all of the fresh, surface water withdrawn from the environment in the U.S. today is used by power companies. They take the profits, and society pays the price.
To keep the fuel flowing, oil companies are radically increasing the potential for environmental catastrophe. The fight against extreme energy is also a fight against the very soul of an irrational system.
The most popular techno-fix for global warming is green energy. If energy companies would only deploy wind, hydro, solar or nuclear, then emission-intensive fossil fuels will eventually disappear. But will that work?
“If you take 40 years to switch over entirely to natural gas, you won’t see any substantial decrease in global temperatures for up to 250 years. There’s almost no climate value in doing it.” ++++++ by Mike Lemonick Climate Central, Feb. 28, 2012 Remember how ethanol was going to save us? It was the perfect solution […]
Even if we convert totally tomorrow, it would be decades before the transition from coal-based power brings temperature benefits. We have delayed too long already and it is time to get started. +++++++++++++ by Kate Ravilious Environmental Research Web, Feb 16, 2012 If the entire world adopted ‘green’ forms of energy tomorrow, how long would it […]
by Steve Drury People and Nature, December 14, 2011 After 12 days of wrangling, posturing, wheeling, dealing, cajoling and demonstrating, delegates at the 17th UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa failed to reach agreement by its scheduled close on Friday 9 December. It took a further 36 hours of “negotiations” to cobble together […]
New Suzuki/Pembina report exposes Canada’s wrong-way policy on natural gas production. (more…)
It is fully within our means today to make the alternative energy dream a green reality. All the technologies exist. Unless we want to consign humanity to a broiling, toxic swamp called earth, alternative energy is an imperative. (more…)
Those who deny that renewable energy can meet society’s needs use tactics that are almost identical to those of climate change deniers (more…)