But the real choice is not between a high-powered but dangerous nuclear future and a solar-powered, modest granola lifestyle. We will never build enough nukes to replace the immense legacy of stored sunlight that is fossil fuels. We are inevitably headed toward a different, decentralized, low energy future. If there is a human impulse toward imperialism, there is an equally strong human impulse for democracy, and I am optimistic that the future will offer fewer opportunities for despots and more for democrats.This is an important point, one that doesn't get mentioned enough (though I wish she'd left out the "spare the children" bit, as it plays into stereotypes of the "granola lifestyle" she mentions). Ultimately, I think this may come down to a question of framing. What if those of us who support renewables started using a "self-reliance" context vs. something like the "big government" label (it would be hard to argue that nuclear energy doesn't benefit from massive government subsidies)? "Neighborhood energy," anyone?
The real choice then is this: Do we saddle our descendents with the poison forever of nuclear contamination in our attempts to hang on to a doomed lifestyle? Or do we start learning to live lightly on the planet now, and spare the children?
Got to get the dog to the groomer -- I'll be back later.
Technorati tags: nuclear power, renewable energy, economics, politics
Shop Solar and Rewewable Energy Items at Gaiam.com!