====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
A few days before Bittman's anti-nuke commentary in the NYT appeared, Eduardo Porter wrote one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/economy/coming-full-circle-in-energy.html?pagewanted=all Porter writes: "The arithmetic is merciless. To make it likely that the world’s temperature will rise no more than 2 into the air from now through 2050 and only 75 billion tons after that, according to an authoritative new study in Britain." "The United States Energy Information Administration forecasts that global energy consumption will grow 56 percent between now and 2040. Almost 80 percent of that energy demand will be satisfied by fossil fuels. Under this assumption, carbon emissions would rise to 45 billion tons a year in 2040, from 32 billion in 2011, and the world would blow past its carbon ceiling in fewer than 25 years." Porter argues that nuclear power is a viable, cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels. Should we make a distinction between nuclear energy under capitalism versus a post-capitalist world? The danger of nuclear proliferation, for instance, is real in a world of capitalist rivalry, but maybe not in a world of socialist cooperation. Is the anti-nuclear position an absolute one, or would it change under socialism/communism? And is there any evidence that nuclear power is as dangerous now than the use of fossil fuels? Glenn ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
