Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:A Green Embraces Evidence, Rejects Panic

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There is much I disagree with in Zion Lights's May 31 piece in Quillette, but her embrace of nuclear power and not-quite-explicit rejection of Greta Thunberg's infamous call to panic are encouraging signs.

Regarding the first, the following required rare and laudable degrees of self-awareness and -- considering today's poisonous political climate -- courage to publish:

Image by Adam Tinworth, via Wikimedia Commons, license.
I do understand the NRDC's [Natural Resources Defense Council --ed] stance -- since I once fell for scaremongering and conspiracy theories regarding nuclear power myself. I even protested against it. I believed that nuclear waste is unmanageable and poses a threat to life, and that radiation warrants the closure of nuclear power stations. All of these beliefs were wrong. For many years I had criticised anti-vaxxers for taking a position that goes against scientific consensus, but I had been anti-nuclear myself which also goes against the scientific consensus.

I shudder to think of the damage this may have done to our planet. Misinformed beliefs have consequences
. [bold added]
And on the second:
This is why I've founded Emergency Reactor, a new green campaign for evidence-based environmentalism. In the battle against misinformation, every small act can make a difference. We need to react now to the issues the world faces -- air pollution, poverty, climate change -- but we also need to react rationally.

For too long traditional environmentalism has led the way with unscientific beliefs and ideologies, attacking anyone who holds opposing opinions, while demanding that the world's largest cake be baked without flour. This ideology has held us back, and this gatekeeping over environmentalism needs to end, because in too many cases, these groups are doing more harm than good to the planet they claim to defend. [bold added]
More of this, please! (And if I had a wish, it would be that Lights and others who are open to reason would continue, by questioning more deeply what we are all being told to react to, per the link below.)

Regulars here will know that I disagree with Lights: I agree with energy activist Alex Epstein that we should continue using fossil fuels, and that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a crisis.

Nevertheless, it is heartening to see that there are people important to the green movement who are beginning to realize that the climate debate, such as it is, has been hostile to evidence and reason, the two things we most need to flourish and to make our world a safe and pleasant place to live.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...