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