Which is it? 

Endure a risky technology for a while longer, or aggravate the climate change that is threatening our planet with immediate and certain disaster? I am referring to the dispute over delaying the closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open.

Liberals are generally very concerned about climate change and greenhouse gases, and have long campaigned for the reduction and elimination of fossil fuels. Climate change is depicted as an existential threat to the planet and humanity. A substantial majority of our current energy production comes from burning fossil fuels, and we are engaged in serious efforts to replace fossil fuels with "green" energy sources like solar and wind power. We have far less "green" energy capacity than we need, and developing more will take time. We also have not yet developed any practical way to store the massive amounts of energy necessary to run society during periods when solar and wind energy are not available, such as nighttime or overcast or calm weather.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant currently provides around 9 to 10 percent of California's electrical power, but it was scheduled to be de-commissioned in 2024. It does not generate any greenhouse gases or otherwise contribute to climate change, and it is reliably available 24/7. Once offline, the power that Diablo Canyon is currently producing will need to be replaced by fossil fuel generating plants here or out of state. It will not be possible to replace the energy that will be lost with "green" energy by then. Other than nuclear, the only "green" power source that is available 24/7 is hydroelectric, which cannot be expanded due to environmental concerns and limited availability, especially during this drought.

Of course, nuclear energy has its own well-known problems, primarily the storage of highly radioactive used fuel rods, and the possibility of a catastrophic accident that might contaminate a large area, such as occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Here, we are considering merely adding a relatively small amount to the existing fuel rods, which will still need to be disposed of in any event.

Thus, our choice is between two problematic alternatives: maintain a risky technology for a while longer, or to instead shut it down and greatly increase our use of fossil fuels, substantially worsening a condition that we are told will soon result in catastrophe. I have yet to hear anyone suggest specific other alternatives or offer anything beyond platitudes, vague rhetoric, and magical thinking.

Pragmatism is the ability to, when forced to choose between two bad alternatives, select the "least bad" choice. Most people would pragmatically consider the choice to endure a risk to be preferable to choosing the alternative of certain destruction.

As I write this, we are facing a heatwave-induced brownout, and instructions that electric cars not be charged during the power shortage. And, in today's New Times (Sept. 1), there are four opinion pieces attacking the option of keeping Diablo Canyon open (although none of them offer any suggestions as to replacing the power). Wouldn't it be ironic if these folks were unable to attend an anti-nuclear demonstration due to the batteries in their Teslas and Volts being dead?

This is not simply a liberal vs. conservative issue and is splitting the environmentalists. Many liberals, after considering the calculus, have pragmatically concluded that continuing nuclear power is the "least bad" alternative. Even the reliably progressive Democratic Party endorsed both "existing and advanced nuclear" power in its 2020 platform.

With the choice so stark that it generates a bipartisan response even in these bitterly polarized times, what explains the opposition to keeping Diablo Canyon open until "green power" is sufficient?

For some, it comes down to "emotional conditioning." Having been conditioned by the 1979 movie The China Syndrome and decades of furious leftist rhetoric, the "official" liberal position has long been to oppose to nuclear power. Having positioned themselves as rigidly anti-nuclear, these liberals are simply incapable of considering our current circumstances and doing the pragmatic thing. They are paralyzed between their loathing of nuclear power and their conviction that greenhouse gases must be quickly eliminated to save humanity.

For others, it is a test that reveals just how serious a problem they truly believe climate change to be. If they are willing to aggravate a condition that they are telling us will soon doom the planet, you really have to question their sincerity. Are the rants of Greta Thunberg predicting the dystopian future facing us, merely the usual hysterics and hyperbole we expect from the left? Are their dire predictions merely political theater to convince society to give them massive amounts of money and power, and to endure job losses and hardships, merely to cure an imaginary problem?

Pragmatic liberal, emotional hostage, or craven opportunist? Which one are you? Δ

John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach, who is researching how to harness the limitless heat and energy of political discord. Send a response for publication to [email protected].