Over at Crooked Timber I ran across this post by Belle Waring that struck me as a particularly feeble response to a common argument made by global warming skeptics.
It’s a standard move in global warming denial rhetoric to say, “if they were really serious about CO2 production, those crazy hippies would support the construction of nuclear power plants. Bwa ha ha ha, in your face, Al Gore!” Now, I never see anyone actually go on to advocate new nuclear power plants. But guess what? If, after the implementation of a reasonable, revenue-neutral carbon tax, nuclear power would be competitive without subsidies, then I would be happy to support nuclear power. If government subsidies would still be required, I think we would be better off subsidising something like wind or solar power, because nuclear power plants do have a wee negative externality problem, what with all the extra security needed, and that whole “radioactive” issue.
Where this goes wrong is in failing to recognize that the original argument is addressed to people who think that the consequences of global warming will be catastrophic in the near future, and that the argument comes from people who do not believe that the consequences will be catastrophic. Several obvious points follow from this.
Now, I never see anyone actually go on to advocate new nuclear power plants.
Sure, that’s because the people making the argument don’t believe there are any catastrophic consequences that must be averted. Why would they advocate a solution to a problem that, as far as they are concerned, does not exist?
If government subsidies would still be required, I think we would be better off subsidising something like wind or solar power…
Wind and solar power might make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions but they could never produce the 50-90% reductions that global warming alarmists claim we need. The people this argument is addressed to do not think that some fiddling around the edges with renewable power sources is going to be enough. A disaster of epic proportions is on the way remember?
…nuclear power plants do have a wee negative externality problem, what with all the extra security needed, and that whole “radioactive” issue…
While nuclear power carries some costly externalities, these are trivial compared to the disaster that global warming alarmists are predicting.
The position that Waring takes is fine for someone who thinks that the effects of global warming are going to be significant, but maybe not such a big deal. But that is exactly the problem that global warming skeptics are pointing to. Global warming alarmists say the apocalypse is nigh, but when you look at their proposed solutions, and the solutions they won’t propose, it’s hard to believe that they take their own predictions seriously.
