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 letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Student Guide 2022.
John, very average piece as usual. Good point.
Climate change?
Imaginary problem promoted by furious leftists and a Swedish teenager that I have a weird obsession with?
Or real problem that liberals just aren’t handling as decisively as I would like at certain times, while voting overwhelmingly to keep nuclear plants open, while also building alternative energy sources, while the conservative position is to just continue burning fossil fuels?
Which one is it? Great question, John. Nice work.
Character. The right answer is all of the above. If we believe in climate change (I do, I just think it occurs naturally and we can’t influence it) we should develop green energy. In case most haven’t gotten the message. We don’t have enough power. Yeah, I get it, you believe that we cause climate change so I’ll shrug my shoulders and so okay, let’s increase the green energy that we produce. In the meantime, the lights need to stay on, Liberals need their Starbucks and their EV and it’s nice to turn on the AC at work. Let’s also keep fossil fuels and nuclear until we can all enjoy the benefits of not living in caves with campfires to heat us.
Surprised to read this just a few days after Newsom and the democratic CA reps voted to keep Diablo open. Obviously the tides have shifted on this and most liberals agree that keeping Diablo open for at least a while is a good thing.
Why not acknowledge that liberal thinking has adapted to changing conditions and should be commended for that? As a conservative you should be welcoming our agreement, not decrying the few who still oppose nuclear.
Justin, welcome the agreement? What’s to welcome? After leading us to the brink of darkness you finally figured it out. This at the same time that gas combustion cars were outlawed? Who is going to staff Diablo Canyon? Many have already left and why would you come back after having moved on? How many qualified people are there nationally? Do you think they will uproot their lives with the threat of closure hanging oover their heads? There are consequences to stupid policy choices. Being welcomed isn’t one of them.
Tony, the power plant has stayed on.
This is all one weird grievance about “liberals” almost not doing a thing about another thing that you don’t even think is a problem. And it’s also about “Starbucks” somehow? Very strange things to be mad about.
The above comments indicate that most liberals have pragmatically agreed on keeping Diablo Canyon open, yet in the prior edition of this paper, all four of the commenters (including the Shredder) OPPOSED keeping Diablo Canyon open. It seems that there has not been the shift of consciousness claimed. Perhaps you mean that the SANE liberals have agreed on the need to keep it open. Unfortunately, this seems to be a minority view on the left.
@Neighborhood: I am “obsessed with a Swedish teenager”? It is you liberals who have turned this hysterical kid into an icon, a sort of environment Joan of Arc. I am just pointing out how silly your fixation is.
A child: Please stop warming the planet.
John Donegan, a top 10 retired attorney in Pismo Beach, CA: You’re being hysterical.