[Marxism] Nuclear Issues

Sayan Bhattacharyya ok.president+marxmail at gmail.com
Tue Jul 11 11:19:03 MDT 2006

On 7/11/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it
> It's true that another Chernobyl couldn't happen in a new reactor, but the
> case against is as strong as ever
> George Monbiot
> Tuesday July 11, 2006
> The Guardian
> But perhaps the strongest argument against nuclear power is that we do not
> need it, even to reach the extraordinarily ambitious target that the
> science
> demands. With similar levels of investment in energy efficiency and carbon
> capture and storage, and the exploitation of the vast new offshore wind
> resources the government has now identified, we could cut our carbon
> emissions as swiftly and as effectively as any atomic power programme
> could.
> In North America, where natural gas supplies have already peaked and are
> in
> long-term decline, this is a much tougher challenge than in Eurasia; but
> while our supplies of gas persist we should use them, and bury the carbon
> dioxide that our power stations produce, while developing the electricity

This article suffers from a western-centric blinkeredness, I think, which
is  evinced in the above paragraph.  Natural gas based and wind based power
generation  is expensive.  Western Europe can perhaps afford  to  opt for
this form of energy as the primary source, but I doubt if India or China
(and other third world countries) can afford to, and so for the third world,
nuclear power probably remains the only viable option for the immediate


More information about the Marxism mailing list