Monday, August 1, 2016

A surefire path to freezing, courtesy of the Sierra Club

I’d rather nap than watch a political speech by anybody, but the airwaves were filled with Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. She mouthed the usual stale liberal bromides, among them “clean energy.”

Tom Gantert, writing at Michigan Capitol Confidential, did some digging and found out the Sierra Club opposes or is trying to severely restrict sources producing 91% of that state’s power. In other words, the Sierra Club wants you to hug trees while you freeze to death on the Upper Peninsula. (In Detroit, you’d be mercifully shot before frostbite set in.)

The Sierra Club, of course, realized it was caught red-handed and wouldn’t comment, but Mr. Gantert found the evidence on the organization’s website, which starts out nobly, “We have a vision of a world powered by clean energy, where dirty and dangerous fossil fuels are a thing of the past and everyone can enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to renewable energy resources.”

He went on to cite the page that calls natural gas “dirty, dangerous, and run amok.” The Sierra Club has championed shutting down coal plants; don’t ding them for that, they are true believers.

The puzzling thing is the unequivocal opposition to nuclear plants, which provide almost a third of Michigan’s energy. The Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, called nuclear power “dangerous” in The Wall Street Journal. But why? Because Fukushima, where a design flaw contributed heavily? Because Chernobyl? Because Homer Simpson? Because “The China Syndrome,” which turned out to be more about TV news than nuclear energy?

For fairness and balance, we present rebuttal from the flack for the Nuclear Energy Institute, also from the article:

Environmental wackos never want to face facts and reality. BTW, keep those tax-deductible donations coming.

No comments:

Post a Comment