He was suing to keep it from being shown at all. Instead, the judge allowed it to be shown but said that the class notes had to include warnings about exaggeration and such.
Many old school Greens are still anti-nuke. Gore will not commit himself on the subject and changes the subject quickly. It is more likely to be the Scientific side of the AGW support that promotes Nuclear power or some Green Republicans like me.
Honestly, the older Greens are still very anti-nuke though some are changing their minds as they are weighing the clear risk of AGW and Coal burning vs. the threat of Nuclear waste and problems.
Neil Young is even organizing a new No-Nukes concert from what I understand.
I am surprised that despite not getting along with Greens, a Nuke power guy would do anything but support AGW solutions. He is probably harboring an old grudge and just hates all greens at this point. People are allowed to be irrational on either side of the debate.
In BG’s quote, it is noted that most of the money is coming from Cloburn Quarry Limited, not the Nuclear industry. So I don’t think the Nuclear Industry has much to do with this.
I don’t think that’s an accurate representation. Both the time that I saw Gore speak in person recently and in his congressional testimony he discussed nuclear power at length. He didn’t hide from the issue at all. And his arguments against it are wholly different from the 1970’s anti-nuke crowd’s arguments, so it’s hardly fair to suggest that his position is just a holdover from that movement.
What exactly is the complaint here? That Dimmock was paid by a big evil corporation in exchange for bring the lawsuit? That the corporation paid his legal bills? That Dimmock lied about the corporation’s involvement?
Why shouldn’t these people support him if they so wish? Britain is a free country. He didn’t lie about it, did he? Fair does on the paper for bringing this to light, but was it actually hidden? Legal fees are costly, so it’s only to be expected that he had backers.
Americans should be aware that The Guardian is a very left-wing newspaper. Hence the slam on Mr Tipp.
Could also add "a scumbag corporate shill"is ridiculous. The party apparently got its money from the Cloburn Quarry Limited which doesn’t look much like some massive corporate multinational organisation. From its web site it seems to be a single quarry in central Scotland!
I really don’t understand green opposition to nuclear power. If the American Lung Association is to be believed, tens of thousands Americans die each year from air pollution. This dwarfs the number of people who have ever been killed by nuclear power. I guess it’s like Barry Glassner’s book The Culture of Fear where he argues that Americans fear big flashy threats (e.g., nuclear meltdown) and ignore mundane, but vastly more serious threats (e.g., inhaled particulate matter).
I think and this is only a thought, that many older greens were also anti-war and pro-peace and anything Nuclear = Bad! I know many older greens and this is true for most of them and nothing I have ever said that was Pro-Nuclear was ever received well.
3-mile Island and Chernobyl cemented them in their thinking. The nuclear waste issue is legit and the threat of more nuclear weapons in more hands is a frightful spectre.
I just think that it is time for countries like China, India and the US to invest in cleaner, safer Nuclear power and regional waste sites. Nuclear power can go a long way to reduce green house gases and air pollution.
I think you’re right, but it’s just so irrational. Chernobyl killed maybe 4,000 people. A lot, but when you consider that coal power kills many more people than that each year, you wonder why people put up with it. I mean, if nuclear power killed 5 or 10,000 people each and every year, then the nuclear power industry would be shut down faster than you can say ‘Uranium-238.’ But people don’t seem to mind being killed by coal.
Greens who are fiscally conservative (i.e. don’t like waste in any context) find nukes far too expensive.
Nukes are unprofitable unless heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, such as in the form of covering the inevitable cost overruns*, supporting vast bureaucracies for regulating it, and assuming liability in case of an incident (for example, in Canada, operators are limited to $75 million liability in the case of an incident - the taxpayers cover the rest). Also, when nukes go off-line (which they often do), not only do you need to keep paying the full operational costs (plus whatever it takes to get them up and running again), but you need to burn coal anyway (cheap, reliable) to replace the lost energy supply.
Amory Lovins was an influential fellow who advocated for a soft energy path, which is very Green and completely incompatible with nuclear.
Or, read what was posted from Gore’s speech upthread.
Even if you don’t care about the traditional Green concerns of nuclear waste or the threat of war, you should still care about the economics of it all. Nukes are an extremely inefficient way to meet our energy needs.
*In a vivid example, Ralph Torrie, a Canadian energy policy guy, was quoted in Hydro by Jamie Smith and Keith Stewart thusly:
I thought he won. The British court made certain findings which it ordered to be prefaced as warnings to any school showing of the film.