I appreciate the passion and enthusiasm the editorial staff showed in responding to climate change (“Here's what averting climate catastrophe would mean,” Oct. 9). However as so often is the case, one person’s science “believer” is at the same time a science “denier.” I give you Exhibit A, nuclear power. Not once in the article is nuclear power mentioned as a solution, yet it is our best solution for zero-emission, reliable and safe power for the long term.
Sadly, those who enthusiastically support climate science turn around and become science deniers when it comes to other proven sciences like nuclear power, genetically modified organisms and vaccinations. You can’t have it both ways; you either believe in what science tells us, or you don’t. Selectively choosing the science you believe in is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Nuclear power technology today has made massive improvements in terms of materials, technology and safety that make it a slam-dunk winner to address our long term power needs. Renewables, like wind and solar, while feel-good, have gaping holes and cannot produce the amount of power needed, either now or in the future.
The New York Times has caught on to the value of nuclear power, and has recently chastised governments like the state of California, which recently shut down the Diablo Canyon reactor, only to realize its energy output needed to be replaced by … you guessed it, fossil-fuel powered plants. It seems that the so-called renewables could not be relied upon to fill the demand that the nuclear plant once did.
Sadly, the only thing getting in the way of eliminating our power-generation carbon footprint is the fear-mongering of science deniers. Please do not be selective in your application of which science to believe in, otherwise you become no different than those who deny climate change. You have an obligation to educate people on all sides of the issue, it’s time to start.
Greg Corrigan, Ellicott City