Ben Heard joka kirjoittaa DecarbonizeSA blogia keskustelee ilmastonmuutoksesta ja siihen liittyvistä haasteista todella tehokkaasti. Tässä hän kirjoittaa teemasta “Why pro-nuclear has failed when anti-nuclear has succeeded?“. Hän päättää kirjoituksensa hienosti:

So who are we? I want to know what you think. Here’s what I think.

We are the people who hit the late 20th and early 21st century and fully accepted that the planet had a suite of urgent and interrelated problems. We are the ones who actually mean it when we use the expression “climate crisis”. We are the ones who have the courage to be open to all solutions in the face of seemingly intractable problems, and to recognise when fear rather than fact is driving the decision making. We are the ones who are prepared to stand against the Australian societal norm, including the friends we leave behind in Australia’s powerful mainstream environmental movement, and say “No, we have been mistaken”. We are the ones who value every human life equally; so logically we value saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year through re-stabilising the climate and cutting air pollution above saving no lives by protesting nuclear power. We are the ones who can see a path to dramatically less mining, pollution and pressure on our forests and wildlands, through bringing energy for development from the densest energy source on earth. We are not energy hedonists nor are we consumption junkies; but we acknowledge the benefits of the energy-rich modern world in the health, safety, security and prosperity it provides. We’re not trying to solve all the problems of the world… the top five or so will do. We are the true environmentalists for the 21st century. This is something to be very proud of.

We need to acknowledge and value our history and articulate our present; create our own narrative and make it known. This gives people who will consider making the change to pro-nuclear something to hang their identity from with pride.”

Tähän joukkoon minäkin haluan kuulua ja tuo kuvaus sopii vaikkapa määrittelemään tämänkin blogin tarkoitusta. Ydinvoiman vastustajien painoarvo ympäristökeskustelussa on aivan liian suuri ja haitallinen. On tärkeää rikkoa illuusio siitä, että huoli ympäristöstä tarkoittaa paleo-vihreän konsensuksen allekirjoittamista. On monia eri vaihtoehtoja lähestyä samoja asioita ja eri vaihtoehtojen tehokkuudesta ja toimivuudesta voi ja pitää käydä järkevää keskustelua. Konventionaalista viisautta pitää varoa emmekä saa astua pluralistisen tietämättömyyden loukkuun.

Lisäys 16.1.2013: Stewart Brand kirjoittaa myös tästä teemasta hyvin ja voin allekirjoittaa siitä kaiken.”My theory is that the success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces—romanticism and science—that are often in opposition, with a third force emerging. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and dismissive of any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethical rather than moralistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against one another. For them, identifying mistakes is what science is, and direction change is the goal…Hänen kirjansa  “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto” kannattaa muuten lukea.