Environment, Top Stories

Why Climate Activists Will Go Nuclear—Or Go Extinct


In October 2019, the British climate activist group Extinction Rebellion carried out two weeks of civil disobedience in London and other cities around the world. Six thousand activists blocked the five main bridges that cross the River Thames, which flows through London, preventing people from getting to work or home.

An Extinction Rebellion spokesperson went on national television and made a series of alarming claims. “Billions of people are going to die.” “Life on Earth is dying.” And, “Governments aren’t addressing it.”

Some journalists pushed back. The BBC’s Andrew Neil interviewed a visibly uncomfortable Extinction Rebellion spokesperson in her mid-30s named Zion Lights. “One of your founders, Roger Hallam, said in April, ‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years,’” said Neil. “What’s the scientific basis for these claims?”

“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” Lights said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying that they’re simply not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”

“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent reports] and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children going to die in under 20 years… How would they die?”

Responded Lights, “Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, also Siberia, the Arctic.”

“These are really important problems,” Neil said, “and they can cause fatalities. But they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t mean that our young people will all be dead in 20 years.”

“Perhaps not in 20 years,” acknowledged Lights.

“I’ve seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration… crying because they think they’re going to die in five or six years’ time, crying because they don’t think they’ll ever see adulthood,” said Neil. “And yet there’s no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.”

“I’m not saying that because I’m alarming children,” replied Lights. “They’re learning about the consequences.”

Apocalyptic climate claims have had a major impact. In September 2019, a survey of 30,000 people around the world found that 48 percent believed climate change would make humanity extinct. In January of this year, a survey found that one in five British children were having nightmares about climate change.


For the last decade I have been obsessed with a question: Why are the people who are the most alarmist about environmental issues also opposed to all of the obvious solutions? 

Those who raise the alarm about food shortages oppose expanding the use of chemical fertilizers, tractors, and GMOs. Those who raise the alarm about Amazon deforestation promote policies that fragment the forest. And those who raise the alarm about climate change oppose nuclear energy, the largest source of zero-emissions energy in developed nations. Why is that?

It is not an academic question for me. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an energy expert for 10 of them. I was adamantly against nuclear energy until about a decade ago when it became clear renewables couldn’t replace fossil fuels. After educating myself about the facts, I came to support the technology. 

Over the last five years, I have campaigned, as founder and president of my small and independent nonprofit research organization, Environmental Progress, to expand the use of nuclear energy. During that time our main opponents have not been climate skeptics or even the fossil fuel industry but rather other climate activists. 

This is the case around the world. It is climate alarmist Democrats and Greens who are seeking to shut down nuclear plants in the US and Europe. Greta Thunberg last year condemned the technology as “extremely dangerous, expensive, & time-consuming,” which is false. And Green New Deal architect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has advocated closing the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York, which is now being replaced with natural gas. 

In nearly every situation around the world, support for nuclear energy from climate activists like Thunberg and AOC would make the difference between nuclear plants staying open or closing, and being built or not being built. Had Thunberg spoken out in defense of nuclear power she likely could have prevented two reactors in her home nation of Sweden from being closed. Had AOC advocated for Indian Point rather than condemned it as dangerous, it could likely keep operating, for at least 40 years longer.

That’s because the main problem facing nuclear energy is that it’s unpopular—and far more among progressives than conservatives, and far more among women than men. There are no good technical or economic reasons that nations from the US and Japan to Sweden and Germany are closing their nuclear plants. Center-left governments are closing them early in response to the demands of progressives and Greens—the very same people who are claiming climate change will kill billions of people.

Trying to understand why that is set me off on the journey that led me to write my new book, Apocalypse Never, which HarperCollins will release next week. I had originally envisioned the book as focused narrowly on nuclear. But after Thunberg, AOC, and Extinction Rebellion activists made their widely-publicized claims of climate armageddon, I decided to expand my book’s focus to go through the evidence and separate science fiction from scientific facts. 


In December, I interviewed Lights, by phone. A lifelong environmentalist, Lights is the author of the 2015 book, The Guide to Green Parenting, which has been praised by climate activist Bill McKibben and former British Green Party leader Natalie Bennet. 

Shortly after she told me her history, we started to argue.

“Let’s talk about the claims,” I said. “Billions are going to die?”

“I didn’t say that,” Lights said. “Roger [Hallam] said it.” 

“But he’s the Extinction Rebellion’s founder!” I protested.

“It doesn’t matter!” she said. “They have as much power as I do. So it’s not fair to say he represents us.”

Lights explained that Extinction Rebellion is not an organization in the normal sense. It is officially leaderless.

“I’m not going to say it’s not an issue,” Lights acknowledged after I pressed her on this point. “But we don’t have an official line. I never said the billions thing and never would.”

I wouldn’t let it go. “[Extinction Rebellion spokesperson] Sarah [Lunnon] gave repeated interviews saying ‘billions will die’ and ‘life on Earth is dying,’” I said. “There is growing evidence that children are being affected. We know anxiety and depression are rising across the developed world. I think it’s irresponsible.”

“I agree with you!” said Lights. “I completely agree with you. I went back to XR after the Neil interview and complained about Roger. Then he said what he said about the Holocaust! He said he would step back from XR but he hasn’t. I had a conversation with [another Extinction Rebellion activist] Rupert [Read] saying, ‘Don’t be alarmist.’” 

“I’m still in XR because they changed the dialogue and someone needs to help them not be inaccurate,” she said, “and that’s what I’ve been trying to do.”

“But the ‘extinction’ in the name Extinction Rebellion’ implies human extinction!” I said.

“It’s supposed to refer to animal extinction, not human extinction,” she said. “It’s a work in progress.”

Lights then said something that caught my attention. “I’m like you,” she said. “I think we need nuclear.”

Lights said she had quit the Green Party 10 years earlier over its opposition to nuclear. “I was in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and got sucked into this idea of nuclear not being safe,” she explained.

Lights told me she changed her mind after a scientist told her nuclear energy was, in fact, safer than other energy sources. “I said, ‘That’s not what I’ve been told.’ And he said, ‘Don’t just listen to what people tell you.’ And so I looked it up and he was right. The data shows it is safe. And I realized solar panels and batteries are not going to meet demand. The more I read the more I realized, ‘Oh no! These things I believed aren’t true!’”

“I then—perhaps somewhat naively—went to people thinking they’d want to know the truth, and then realizing that they don’t. And that’s always difficult. I really struggled to get Greenpeace to listen to the evidence. At times, they have made things up, disingenuously, and they don’t care! It was like dealing with anti-vaxxers,” she said with a rueful laugh. “I couldn’t deal with it. It was like identity politics. I got fed up.”

Lights said she pushed back against other Extinction Rebellion activists who wanted to promote renewables and criticize nuclear. “When they’re pushing solar, or battery storage, and I say to them ‘I heard that 10 years ago! We have nuclear! We have an option! And what we’ve done is descale all of that and shut it down and look at Germany when they did that! Their emissions went up!’”


The active participation or at least consent by leading climate activists including Thunberg, AOC, and many Extinction Rebellion activists to the closure of nuclear plants, and opposition to new ones, threatens to undermine the public’s trust in their sincerity. 

The public has good reason to distrust many climate activists. In my research for Apocalypse Never I discovered that many anti-nuclear environmental groups, including Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and 350.org either take money from or are invested directly in, natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to gain enormously by shutting down nuclear plants.

A single nuclear plant like Indian Point can provide electricity for over three million people, and thus replacing even one nuclear plant is a lucrative business for competitor fossil fuel and renewable energy companies. During a 10-year period, Indian Point’s owner could bring in $8 billion in revenue. Over 40 years revenues could easily reach $32 billion. If Indian Point plant closes as scheduled—one reactor closed earlier this year, and another is set to close next year—those billions will flow directly to natural gas and renewables companies.

Sierra Club, NRDC, and EDF have worked to shut down nuclear plants and replace them with fossil fuels and a smattering of renewables since the 1970s. They have created detailed reports for policymakers, journalists, and the public purporting to show that neither nuclear plants nor fossil fuels are needed to meet electricity demand, thanks to energy efficiency and renewables. And yet, as we have seen, almost everywhere nuclear plants are closed, or not built, fossil fuels are burned instead.

But it’s not just about money. It’s also about ideology. Anti-nuclear groups have long had a deeply ideological motivation to kill off nuclear energy.

Policymakers, journalists, conservationists, and other educated elites in the ’50s and ’60s knew that nuclear was unlimited energy and that unlimited energy meant unlimited food and water. 

We could use desalination to convert ocean water into freshwater. We could create fertilizer without fossil fuels, by harvesting nitrogen from the air, and hydrogen from water, and combining them. We could create transportation fuels without fossil fuels, by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make artificial hydrocarbons, or by splitting water to make pure hydrogen gas.

Nuclear energy thus created a serious problem for Malthusians—followers of widely-debunked 18th-century economist, Thomas Robert Malthus—who argued that the world was on the brink of ecological collapse and resource scarcity. Nuclear energy not only meant infinite fertilizer, freshwater, and food but also zero pollution and a radically reduced environmental footprint. 

In reaction, Malthusians attacked nuclear energy as dangerous, mostly by suggesting that it would lead to nuclear war, but also by spreading misinformation about nuclear “waste”—the tiny quantity of used fuel rods—and the rapidly decaying radiation that escapes from nuclear plants during their worst accidents.

There is a pattern: Malthusians raise the alarm about resource depletion or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions. In the late 1700s, Thomas Malthus had to reject birth control to predict overpopulation. In the 1960s, Malthusians had to claim fossil fuels were scarce to oppose the extension of fertilizers and industrial agriculture to poor nations and to raise the alarm over famine. And today, climate activists reject nuclear energy in order to declare a coming climate apocalypse.


The United Kingdom is a particularly important nation for nuclear energy right now. The UK is currently on track to lose 14 out of 15 of its operating nuclear reactors, by 2030. If that happens, they will be replaced by natural gas, and emissions will increase.

If, however, the government authorizes the construction of four large new reactors, identical to its two reactors currently under construction, the UK will replace all of the nuclear energy being lost and expand total nuclear energy by 50 percent over today.

Aside from the climate benefits, the benefits to the natural environment would be enormous. Nuclear plants in the UK require 450 times less land than solar or wind farms. And unlike solar and wind farms, nuclear plants operate reliably, day and night, rain and shine, wind or no wind. 

I visited London last October when Extinction Rebellion activists were gluing their hands to police barricades in Trafalgar Square, forcibly closing Westminster. I was there to advocate for those nuclear plants. While in town I met with then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, with representatives of Prime Minister Boris Johnson at 10 Downing Street, and with environmentalists opposed to nuclear.

A few weeks later, the Labour Party announced tentative support for building new nuclear plants. Now, the Johnson government is deciding whether to support two of the four new proposed reactors.

The UK has only grown in importance to the future of nuclear energy in the West over the last nine months. 

Nuclear plants are at risk of being prematurely closed and replaced by fossil fuels and renewables around the world. Governments in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, France, Belgium, Spain, and the United States are all taking action to close nuclear plants prematurely. If that happens, they will be replaced by fossil fuels and carbon emissions will rise significantly.

Anti-nuclear forces are successfully forcing the premature closure of a perfectly good nuclear power plant, Fessenheim, in order to make way for more industrial wind turbines and natural gas. 

In the meantime, renewables are reaching their environmental and political limits around the world. The expansion of industrial wind energy in Germany has nearly ground to a halt due to citizen opposition to new transmission lines and forest loss. Ohio regulators have effectively blocked industrial wind turbines from being built in Lake Erie because they would kill and threaten the viability of several species of migratory birds. And a federal judge recently halted plans to build a massive new transmission line for industrial wind turbines that would have bisected the Sand Hills nature preserve of Nebraska, citing threats to endangered species including whooping cranes. 

It is increasingly obvious to climate and energy experts that “deep decarbonization” of energy—not just electricity but also the energy required for heating, cooking, and transportation that comprise roughly two-thirds of our energy consumption—requires nuclear, due to the high cost and unreliability of renewables. 

But with experienced reactor builders Germany, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and the US all but abandoning their nuclear building expertise, the Western alliance is left with a single major nuclear power plant builder, France. 

Unfortunately, France has no plans to build in Europe—not even in France. As such, if the UK commits to building six French nuclear reactors, belief in nuclear within European governments and among global investors will grow. History shows that each new reactor will get built faster and cheaper. As a result, the viability of the technology in the West would be greatly revived. 


Two weeks ago, I emailed Zion Lights to see if she would do a video call with me. I had remembered that she was pro-nuclear and thought there might be an outside chance that she would add her name to supporters of an open letter, advocating that the plants be built. We arranged to talk after she had put her two young children to bed.

Though we had argued back in December, I had left our conversation impressed by her intelligence, passion, and courage in standing up for what she believed in. Zion hadn’t defended the obviously unscientific claims her colleagues had made. And she had prevented her Extinction Rebellion activists from attacking nuclear energy in the ways Greta Thunberg and AOC have.

After I explained the situation to her, Zion immediately said she would be happy to add her name to such an effort. Could she help me reach out to other environmentalists in Britain to make the case for nuclear? I asked her. I couldn’t think of anyone more qualified and capable of doing so. She said she could. 

In the end, we got along so well, that I offered Zion the position of UK Director for Environmental Progress, and she accepted. Today, the British newspaper City A.M. has published her op-ed about why she changed her mind about nuclear and has decided to campaign in favor of the technology.

Already, many influential British environmentalists including Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, Guardian columnist George Monbiot, and science journalist Mark Lynas advocate nuclear energy. One of the world’s leading experts on the impact of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents on health, Dr. Gerry Thomas of Imperial College London, is pro-nuclear. 

Zion feels that there may even be more pro-nuclear support to find within Extinction Rebellion and the Green Party, but isn’t naive. “I talk about nuclear a lot but get a lot of flack about it from ordinary people,” she told me last year, “not just Greens but ordinary people have a real fear. And journalists often get it wrong. And then the politicians get it wrong. They don’t mean to. They just don’t understand what the science is saying.”

There are a lot of pro-nuclear people in the West who have largely given up hope for the technology, pointing to stubborn resistance from the public, particularly the Left. Britain shows why we shouldn’t do so. A consensus has grown in the UK among Conservatives and much of Labour that it needs nuclear not just for climate change but also to reduce its dependence on imported natural gas. And now nuclear has Zion Lights on its side.

Over time, I believe, the contradiction between preaching climate apocalypse and opposing nuclear energy will become increasingly untenable. The claim that renewables can substitute for fossil fuels in high-energy societies has been repeatedly falsified for more than a half-century. Thunberg, AOC, and Extinction Rebellion leaders will eventually need to admit that we need nuclear, or face a loss of credibility and relevance.

Zion is hopeful that they will ultimately opt for relevance. “You and I didn’t get it right when we were anti-nuclear,” she added. “We’re all on the same side at the end of the day. We all want what’s best for our kids. Let’s try to get it right.”


Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD.


  1. Over the last five years, I have campaigned, as founder and president of my small and independent nonprofit research organization, Environmental Progress, to expand the use of nuclear energy.

    Good luck with that. Across most of the world, people just don’t want it, and their support drops even more if it’s going to be in their backyard. So if it’s going to follow the democratic process at all, you’ve got a lot more persuading to do. That’s politics.

    Then there’s diplomacy. How does the world feel about DPRK and Iran having nuclear reactors? How did they feel about Libya and Iraq doing it? How about Syria? So we in the West are going to build thousands of the things, and those other countries will… do what, exactly? And when they build them and we bomb them, do we get into more endless foreign conflicts?

    The claim that renewables can substitute for fossil fuels in high-energy societies has been repeatedly falsified for more than a half-century.

    The same goes for fossil fuels, which are finite. Like uranium, by the way. “But fast breeders -” make plutonium, see the diplomacy point above. But yes! we can’t have a renewable high energy society. Nor a fossil fuel high energy society, nor yet nuclear.

    So we’ll have to be a lower-energy society. Less profligate use of resources? A horrifying prospect, I know. How could we possibly make do with less, like our parents and grandparents did? They had such awful lives.

  2. I happen to know several XR members and supporters, and sadly they are part of some of what we are seeing in our cities right now. It’s just another example of nihilism, anti consumption and even anarchy. They offer no solutions other than reducing consumption, eliminating production, and a counter-revolution taking us back 100 years concerning energy and life style

  3. Haha, you think it is ridiculous to think people will accept nuclear and then suggest a low energy society :rofl::rofl::rofl:

    No society will choose low energy, period. So you will get either nuclear or fossil fuel power. make your choice.

  4. Mate, I generally respect your contributions, you are a thoughtful and well-informed commentator, but this:

    Given the choice between a low energy future and continuing to use fossil fuels, people will always chose the latter. So what you are effectively committing to is now, in the future, but with considerably increased costs through systemic risk. I imagine we will probably wake up, and finally decide to build nuclear when temperature rise hits 2.25°C, but by then we will be locked into at least 2.75°C.

    There will be no energy austerity because it’s a commons issue. Just look at the yellow jackets movement in France- it’s not the only issue, but it’s fundamentally the biggest one- because higher taxes on the Rich won’t change the behaviour of the working and lower middle classes, which is what the tax changes are intended to achieve.

    Consumption taxes don’t work anyway. Britain has done pretty well in almost every area on climate change- but despite all the changes and innovations in the transport sector, significantly more expensive fuel has only reduced emissions by 3%. Once people have made the energy discipline changes- they will be even more loath to change behaviour than with cars. The only people who will change behaviour will be those closest to bankruptcy- the poor.

  5. No electricity, no peace.

    Know electricity, know peace!

    Nobody is sneaking across any borders to get to the third world, let the wokes have Seattle and whatever few square blocks they can manage to get hold of. Let’s have everyone get a good look at what happens when cultural norms are eroded, and the kids realize their twitter history won’t prevent a hungry thug from taking their vegan protein bar away from zher, or zhem.

  6. This dead horse has been beaten to death many times. The AOCs, Thunbergs, and other doomed world ghouls care not a scintilla about energy efficiency and AGW or the other woke causes they predictably champion, such as systemic racism (whatever that is in the modern world), DIE, intersectionality, equality (of what?), LGBT+++ rights and all their other kneejerk, whiny topics. They are only interested in the accretion of power, the deconstruction of capitalism, and the advent of an always impossible socialist utopia (see accretion of power above.) But yet we have Millennials and the Gen Whatevers fawning over them like they are the personification of Marx and whichever PC god they care to worship. Yes, those generations that are by far and away the greatest beneficiaries of capitalism and liberal democracy, not to mention the evils of fossil fuels. Yeah, I can see them doing really well in the state-controlled, de-industrialized, agricultural economy to which they aspire. You know, they are just born, uncomplaining, hard workers. Please, hand me the whip. I want to lash that dead horse one more time.

  7. “Why are the people who are the most alarmist about environmental issues also opposed to all of the obvious solutions?”

    “Nuclear energy thus created a serious problem for Malthusians—followers of widely-debunked 18th-century economist, Thomas Robert Malthus—who argued that the world was on the brink of ecological collapse and resource scarcity. Nuclear energy not only meant infinite fertilizer, freshwater, and food but also zero pollution and a radically reduced environmental footprint.”

    He answered his own question.

    The failed predictions of Malthusians, doomsayers and fatalists are legion. Yet they never admit they were wrong, rather they alter the time frame or contrive an explanation. Malthusian Paul Ehrlich lost a wager over his predictions and still will not concede he was wrong.

    “The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even moneythat England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.”

    Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.”

    After railing against nuclear energy for decades, Greens are not about to admit they were wrong. Saying a resource is finite, is useless unless one knows approximately when that resource would actually be depleted. For this reason those making the claim never attempt to corner the market on a resource they claim is about to become a precious commodity. Does finite mean the resource will expire before the earth is no longer in a habitable orbit, the big comet strike or the four horsemen of the apocalypse ride in? Imagine 40 years ago if one were attempting to calculate how long until cooper would be depleted based upon current usage, wouldn’t the now prevalence of fiber optics have greatly upset the forecast? Scientific predictions to be accurate require a fairly static model with some constants or consistencies. In other words a model where past performance is indicative of future performance. Human growth, innovation and progress are never static nor do they progress at constant or consistent rates. Likewise calculating an over abundance of progress, innovation or the direction it will take is similarly flawed. Models or predictions based upon how humankind will react or preform will always be unreliable. Seventy years ago people predicted in the next 50 years we would have flying cars, instead we got racist syrup.

  8. From Thomson Reuters:
    NEW DELHI, July 31 (Reuters) - India’s coal-fired power generation capacity is expected to rise by 22.4% in three years, the federal power ministry’s chief engineer said on Wednesday, potentially neutralising its efforts to cut emissions by boosting adoption of renewable energy.

    India, the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, saw its annual coal demand rise 9.1% to nearly 1 billion tonnes in the year ended March 2019. Coal demand from utilities accounted for over three-quarters of total consumption.

    And this headline from The Economist: African countries plan to build dozens of coal-fired power stations

    From China Dialogue: Coal consumption peaked in China in 2013 at 4.24 billion tonnes. Then government efforts to improve the energy structure and tackle pollution saw coal use fall between 2014 and 2016. Following a small increase in 2017 consumption rose again in 2018, according to figures published on February 28 by the National Bureau of Statistics.

    It doesn’t appear that King Coal is abdicating any time soon outside the West, which is still taking most of the flack for its usage. With these developments, all the West’s clean energy virtue signaling will obviously not be pointless, but it certainly will be compromised. There is still a lot of coal in the ground, and coal fired power stations are relatively cheap and easy to build. Above all they provide cheap energy for growing economies. Therefore, desperate times call for desperate measures: Unleash Greta on them!

  9. You know, I once saw a movie and I can’t remember a damn thing about it except one scene. A group of kids come to crossroads, and they ask the cool jock leader kid to decide which way to go. He defers to the kid who is the group dork. He respectfully asks, “Which way do YOU think we should go?” The dork kid, honored, says: “Left”. The jock nods his head and says: “Well that settles that. We go right.” I figure this strategy works out pretty well. Generally, the opposite of whatever the modern left believes is true north. Climate change is but one example.

  10. Nuclear is a for better bet than most of the proposed energy solutions. Of all the foolish responses to the emissions panic bio fuels is the worst. They’re cutting down forests on the American west coast, chipping the wood, transporting it across the continent and across the North Atlantic (using fossil fuels) to be burned in furnaces in Europe to generate electricity. The whole thing is a hideous pretense to garner green credentials for a practice that net generates more CO2 than natural gas electricity would.

  11. "Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions. Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen. "Dividing humanity by a factor of ten” is the environmentalist ideal. “Godefridi says we have good reason to be alarmed. Not by climate change, but by the endless, hazardous-to-humans measures that activists propose in response”.
    The Green Reich

  12. Same reason it won’t crack down on the disinformation about police killings and racial outrage…

  13. When it’s presented as a choice between the status quo and nuclear, people don’t like nuclear. But wait until you tell them they have to give up their cars, stop heating and cooling their homes, stop having cheap food regardless of season, stop traveling internationally for fun, and give up cheap manufactured goods and all the other pleasantries of modern living. When you present it as a choice between maintaining or improving current standards of living for even less money than now with nuclear versus paying more for a vastly lower standard of living with renewables, people will turn on a dime. While wealthy upper-middle class people love to show off how much they care about the environment, one very rarely sees them make a choice that would actually inconvenience them in a significant way.

    An elderly friend used to make fun of people who talked about the “good old days”. She said the good days are right now. If you’re cold you turn on the heat. If you want hot water you just turn the tap. If you want to work at night you turn on the lights. If you want to talk to someone you pick up the phone. Nobody who remembers the old days or has actually lived a sub-first-world standard of living wants to go back.

    How does the world feel about DPRK and Iran having nuclear reactors?

    Iran currently has at least one working reactor. North Korea has in the past, but I don’t believe they currently do. They do have nuclear weapons, however. That cat escaped the bag long ago. Even if it hadn’t, wanting to prevent a few backwards countries from obtaining nuclear weapons is a terrible argument for permanently hobbling living standards for the entire world. If you’re going to take a utilitarian approach like that, it would better to just annihilate the North Korean and Iranian governments so the rest of the world can move on.

  14. System racism in the modern world: 1) public schools without choice; 2) affirmative action; 3) drug/prostitution/gambling criminalization; 4) minimum wage; 5) gerrymandering; 6) regulations and licenses that harm small businesses and entrepreneurship; 7) unions; 8) stop and frisk and other traffic stop sorts of harassment using the police for small infractions; 9) the bail system for people who supposedly are “presumed innocent”; 10) welfare that incentivizes having babies and not being married…

    System racism to the woke: white people exist.

  15. My grandmother had eight children. She had to hang a large cast iron pot over a fire to get hot water for doing the laundry. She then had to beat the laundry with a wood paddle, rise it and hang it to dry.

    Many years later we talking about the incredible technological changes that occurred over her lifetime. However, it wasn’t the phone or television that amazed her, it was the electric washer wringer that made an indelible impression on her because it was a life changing event. She would never go back. I am not going back either. If you want to solve a problem you have to have wealth. Wealth comes from prosperity and prosperity comes from inexpensive energy.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

84 more replies


Comments have moved to our forum