Angela Manno Speaks Out Against Nuclear Power
Marshall Massey
in Environmental Politics, Environmental Theology, Practical Efforts, Quaker Environmental Activity
|
2 Comments
Yesterday, Friend Angela Manno of New York Yearly Meeting (FGC / FUM), contributed a posting to the “earthwitness matters” discussion page here on this site, condemning nuclear energy as an “abomination” and citing her reasons for doing so.
This was an important posting, I believe — particularly because it comes at a time when the winds in Quaker circles seem to be blowing in an opposite direction.
I might note, for example, that Karen Street — a Pacific Yearly Meeting (unprogrammed) Friend, and one of our best-informed and most active Quaker environmentalists — has been campaigning for nuclear power, both on her blog, A Musing Environment, and at Quaker events, for some years now.
I might also note that Robert (last name unknown), a Friend from Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting (FGC), and like Angela an enthusiastic disciple of Tom Berry and Joanna Macy, began advocating nuclear power on his blog, ecospirit, last month, in an essay titled “The Morality of Nuclear Power”.
Which is the right way to go — nuclear, or non-nuclear? Just speaking for myself, I’m respectful of Karen’s expertise, but my leanings are closer to Angela’s.
Let me encourage those who have thoughts to contribute, to post responses either to Angela’s posting here at this site, to some relevant essay on Karen’s blog, or to Robert’s essay on his own blog.
I believe this is an issue that we, as Friends, need to talk our way through. By posting your insights, and helping us understand one another, you can help move us forward toward unity.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
I'd have to say that the alternative to nuclear is coal and oil at present, and given what oil is currently doing to the gulf, nuclear seems the cleaner option. Anyone concerned about global warming is also going to be forced to conclude that nuclear has a much smaller carbon footprint. Nuclear energy is rated to have a risk of one serious accident every 14,000 years.. that we've had several in the last 50 says worse things about our own carelessness than it does about the technology itself. Testing a nuclear reactors behaviour when all the fail safes are disabled (as happened at Chernobyl) is akin to testing the crumple zone of a car by reversing at high speed into a truck.
Dear Friends,
I want to call us back to the commitment to a Third Way, and to the patience and faith that it will be revealed. The choice for nuclear is not a third way, it is the lesser of two evils, because it is an evil, with severe, toxic side effects. One accident, as Marshall wrote early in this thread, is simply unacceptable. Do we need more examples-- more Chernobyls and Fukushimas to remind us?
Patient waiting and searching for a Third Way should include a close examination of the Cornell Study, A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030, by Jacobson and Delucchi. If Friends would stop subsidizing nuclear energy with their own psychic energy, and energize Wind, Water and Solar energy with the same commitment, perhaps we could mobilize the vast potential of Quakers not only to make a monumental difference in the life of the world, but to our own society, which is split, confused and beset with proposals for means that are not consonant with our goals. Peace with Earth cannot be attained by violence towards it. These are our own understandings. Are we now ready to throw them out the window because we are in a panic? Some Quakers dismiss this study as naiive, so I warm the reader in advance: Read the study with your heart and if you find the vision worthy, fight for it with all your heart. In my heart, I know the only way humans will live in harmony with the Earth is to adopt means that are consonant with the Earth's technologies. That means Wind, Water and Solar. To read the study, go to: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030