You might also want to consider why they do not want to appear when they
are invited. They have an interest in keeping the big money corporate
media as the only legitimized news source and to marginalize the
alternatives. If they started accepting invitations to appear on the
alternative news media they would be legitimizing them.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst
out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how
wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/9/2018 9:34 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
That’s great!
Now if opposing views are invited to appear, then they darn well should appear. If they don’t, that sounds a bit cowardly.
Evan
*From:* Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2018 9:29 PM
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Evan, I think that perhaps you’re not understanding what the term, alternative news sources” means. The purpose of these sources is to provide a place for the journalists, commentators, and organizers who aren’t allowed to be heard on corporate and government media, to be heard. However, when Democracy Now covers stories that involve corporate interests, these interests are always invited to appear on the program. 99% of the time, they refuse to appear. Often, they send a written statement which they request that Amy reads, and she does.
Miriam.
*From:* blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Evan Reese
*Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2018 8:59 PM
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
As for Michael Shellenberger being published in Forbes magazine, I can’t help but wonder whether he would be allowed any air time on Democracy Now, or be permitted to publish an article on TRN or Truthdig., or any of your favorite news sources? That applies to anyone wishing to express a view in favor of nuclear. What do you think? Has anyone spoken favorably of nuclear power on Democracy Now? Any articles in favor on TRN or Truthdig or any other of your favorite news sources?
Evan
*From:*Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:*Friday, November 09, 2018 3:07 PM
*To:*blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:*[blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Thank you for the article sent to you by a Nuclear energy advocate who writes for a business oriented publication. Sounds like a truly objective source!
Miriam
*From:*blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *Evan Reese
*Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2018 1:08 PM
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [blind-democracy] Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Hey Guys, thought I’d pass this along.
Not only is public support for nuclear power growing, but the Union of Concerned Scientists is changing its tune as well.
Evan
*From:*Michael Shellenberger
*Sent:*Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:50 AM
*To:*Evan Reese
*Subject:*Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of "Blatant Anti-Nuclear Bias" In Latest IPCC Climate Report
Dear Evan,
Below is my latest column for Forbes on the rising pro-nuclear tide — please share!
Michael
As Renewables Drive Up Energy Prices, Voters In U.S., Asia & Europe Are Opting For Nuclear Power
Voters in the U.S., Asia, and Europe are increasingly opting for nuclear power in
response to rising electricity prices from the deployment of renewables like solar
panels and wind turbines.
By a more than
two-to-one margin
(70% to 30%), voters in Arizona on Tuesday rejected a ballot initiative (proposition
127) that would have resulted in the
closure of that state’s nuclear power plant
and in the massive deployment of solar and wind.
In Taiwan, momentum is building for a repeal of that nation’s nuclear energy phase-out.
Grassroots pro-nuclear advocacy inspired a former president to
help activists gather over 300,000 signatures
so voters could vote directly on the issue on November 24.
And after
a coalition of grassroots groups rallied in Munich, Germany
last month to protest the closure of nuclear plants, a wave of mostly positive media
coverage spread across Europe, inspiring
a majority of Netherlands voters
, and the nation’s ruling political party, to declare support for building new nuclear
reactors.
Now, in the wake of rising public support for nuclear energy, a longstanding foe
of nuclear power, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, has
reversed its blanket opposition
to the technology and declared that existing U.S. nuclear plants must stay open
to protect the climate.
These events have surprised mainstream journalists, politicians, and energy analysts
who, over the last three years, have dismissed and derided the world’s 454 operating
nuclear reactors as antiquated given the declining cost of solar panels and wind
turbines.
But the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines has not made the technologies
more reliable, and the inherent unreliability of sunlight and wind — along with their
huge material and land use requirements — have helped
drive up electricity prices
in places like California and Germany,
even at a time of lower natural gas prices
.
Notably, growing voter support for nuclear energy comes both from progressives who
tend to be more concerned about climate change and from conservatives who tend to
be more concerned about the cost of electricity.
In Netherlands, grassroots advocacy for nuclear energy, and favorable coverage by
the mainstream media — including long segments (
in English
) by two of the nation’s most
influential TV journalists
— has shone a light on the inadequacy of solar and wind to address climate change.
In Arizona, the campaign against proposition 127 focused heavily on avoiding the
mistakes made by California, where
electricity rates rose five times faster than the rest of the country
thanks in large measure to the closure of nuclear plants and the rapid deployment
of solar panels.
“Proposition 127 is a recycled version of California’s failed energy initiatives
being exported to Arizona courtesy of Tom Steyer, California energy hedge fund billionaire,”
wrote
an Arizona state Senator.
Steyer, who
made his money
building coal plants in Asia, and has heavily invested in natural gas and renewables,
spent a record $18 million
of his own money in the doomed effort to pass 127.
In Taiwan, it appears that it is the combination of environmental, economic, and
energy security concerns that has moved voters to overcome their fears of nuclear
in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima accident and panic.
Taiwan imports 98% of its energy and, due to the nation’s nuclear energy phase out,
suffered a devastating electricity shortage last year that
resulted in one death
,
threatened
the nation’s semiconductor industry, and contributed to the declining approval of
the nation’s president.
Economics and environment are two sides of the same coin. Had California and Germany
invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar
and wind farms,
the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean
(low-emissions) energy sources.
These aren’t the first pro-nuclear victories in recent years. In 2016, state governments
in
Illinois
and
New York
acted to prevent nuclear plants from closing. In 2017, a
South Korean
“citizens jury” went from 60% opposed to 60% in favor of nuclear. That victory was
quickly followed actions in
Connecticut
and
New Jersey
to save their nuclear plants.
Increasingly pro-nuclear advocacy is grassroots. In places like South Korea, Taiwan,
and Europe, where the electric utilities that own nuclear plants are often government-owned,
and thus unable to engage in politics, it has been up to independent environmental
groups — and
outspoken climate scientists
— to advocate for nuclear power.
The impacts of their work has stunned and thrilled pro-nuclear activists. “We Dutch
have been anti-nuclear since the 1970s,” said Olguita Oudendijk, co-founder of Ecomodernism
Netherlands. “What turned us around is the high cost of renewables, the
Nuclear Pride Fest
, and serious media attention to the issue turned the public around.”
A poll of 18,000 Dutch voters released yesterday found that
54% favored the use of nuclear energy
while just 35% opposed it. “Achieving climate goals weighs heavier than their objections
to nuclear energy for voters,” the pollster said.
In Taiwan — where pro-nuclear activists went on hunger strike, and to court — to
overturn the government’s attempt to keep the referendum off the ballot, a former
president
said
, "Opposing nuclear energy is now outdated. What has become a trend is how to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle global warming."
In most places, activists have focused heavily on
debunking the many myths
about nuclear power promoted by organizations like Greenpeace, including the notion
that cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will translate into lower electricity
prices when
the opposite is usually the case
.
The inadequacy of solar panels and wind turbines was highlighted by
Arjan Lubach
— the John Oliver of Dutch TV — last Sunday, who in a 20-minute segment educated
viewers on nuclear power’s necessity and safety while making sly, sexual puns. (The
segment
was translated into English.)
A telling moment in the segment came when Lubach cut to a Greenpeace spokesperson
who acknowledged that with nuclear energy “There are no carbon emissions, that’s
true, so it doesn’t contribute to global warming, but there are other disadvantages.”
“Whoa whoa, wait a minute,” Lubach interrupted. “It doesn’t contribute to global
warming but there are
‘other’
disadvantages? You can’t state a huge advantage and then say, “It becomes even worse.”
Asked about the difference in attitudes between the Dutch and the nation’s famously
romantic, antinuclear German neighbors, Dutch ecomodernist Oudendijk said, “We Dutch
are basically very rational people. We just want to solve the problem.”
Said TV comedian Lubach to an on-air correspondent, “I say we take nuclear energy
out of the taboo-sphere.” The correspondent in the "taboo-sphere" is dressed in protective
gear to protect himself, he explains, not from nuclear but rather from STDs.
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment."
