Moving Greenpeace and the European Socialism to “Atomkraft ja bitte”
Pablo Diaz de Rábago
March 26, 2007
European and local media need to push the issue of both Greenpeace and Socialists supporting nuclear energy. From the real arguments, the logic of the main two reasons plus coda (Global warming, energy independence, and development of oil and gas countries based on people and not on natural resources) is light-years ahead of the risks of the technology or of the opportunity cost of not cutting CO2 levels drastically.
This week’s best pitch was to see Greenpeace characterized as a “religious” force by James Lovelock. Maybe he had a lapsus and meant “fanatic” or “irrational”. Maybe he did not want to say that Greenpeace’s position against nuclear should be reviewed with cold heads and changed.
A solid European leadership in this process, as Victor said in a comment to my earlier post, would honour Euratom and EU 50th anniversary.
Atomkraft, Ja, bitte… (to help Russia and the Middle East develop)
Pablo Díaz de Rábago
March 10, 2007
As a teenage student in Austria, 1982, I came to see the first “Atomkraft, Nein Danke” sticker. At first , I could not understand the social reaction to nuclear plants in Austria and Germany. Later, the Three-Mile Island incident and the Tschernobil meltdown put some sense of perspective in the claim nuclear energy was dangerous.
However, the dangers of nuclear plants have evolved, probably not as much as computer power has -compare, for example an Apple II computer of the late eighties to a Backberry today-, but to a standard that makes dangers technically manageable and thus politically acceptable. In this respect see the comments on the Tschernobil technology. The link nuclear danger – Tschernobil is like comparing today car safety – Ford model T.
Still, the left (Socialist) and the Green have not, until recently, started to regard (albeit privately) the possibility of endorsing nuclear power and only in the new light of the global warming threat. See in this respect the change of heart of the author of the GAIA theory, James Lovelock one of the brains behind green political activity. But public endorsement is still not there yet.
Why? (more…)
Let us license the US Constitution for European use (with small amendments)
Pablo Díaz de Rábago
June 16, 2006
In 1789, after the first attempt at creating a US Federal Power failed (the “Articles of Confederation”), when single state economies, foreign trade and diplomacy collapsed, American leaders, instead of turning back to their countries’ dire problems, reconvened once again and realized some things were too big to be left to states and had to be managed together.
But why, having fought a battle with the metropoli, would the new young leaders trust a new power superstructure? In fact they did not, and thus wisely limited the concession of power to a very close list of prerrogatives: the ability to organize Military, Commerce, to dictate Federal Law and a couple of French imports, the declaration of rights and the first system of checks and balances, with the separation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial power.
Should someone in Europe promote an European News Network?
Pablo Díaz de Rábago
May 31, 2006
This title might immediately direct your thoughts to that political and Babelic compromise called “Euronews”. If you ever heard of it. On a second thought, the ingenuity of the author shall be questioned, since we know politicians would never find an agreement even on the language to be used.
But has any of you thought that this effort should be done by private enterprise? Why has no Euro-style Ted Turner stepped up and faced the challenge?