It is only fair to sound two warnings here. First, since nuclear power does not produce any sulfurous emissions (or any other air pollution), acid rain is often invoked as a pro-nuclear argument. This is wrong, mainly because truth is more important than nuclear power. Also, the pronuclear arguments are so weighty that they do not need to be diluted by one that may yet turn out to be very shaky.
On the other hand, we see nothing wrong in exposing politicians' hypocrisy by the comparison. If the very Honorable Richard Ottinger (D-NY) is genuinely interested in eliminating acid rain caused by power plants, why does he not fervently push for nuclear power? Or is it that as the representative of Westchester County, one of the nation's most affluent, he gets re-elected only if he denies the little man upward mobility by stifling abundant energy of any kind and pressing exclusively for the energy supplied by rich men's toys?
The second warning concerns the objections listed above. They are obviously serious, but it is not certain that they cannot be countered by some presently unknown, but perfectly valid counter-arguments in the future. Perhaps something in the weather, conducive to the acidity of rain, has changed since the 1950's. Perhaps California's acid rain does come from Mexico by some unsuspected atmospheric mechanism. Or
¾ and this example seems less far-fetched as an explanation¾it could be that what has changed since the fifties is the severity of pollution control. It could be that acidic pollution used to be partially neutralized by alkaline pollution, and that presently enforced pollution controls remove too much of the neutralizers. That seems to be a distinct possibility, though at this point little can be said about its general validity. It would, however, be neat if it turned out to be true: it would show that far from being Ottinger-tamed, acid rain is actually Ottinger-engendered.If some such explanation should prove valid, and coal-fired power plants should prove the culprits for acid rain after all, today's charlatans will, of course, triumphantly boast "We told you so!" This will promote them to the status of double charlatans, for they have no way of knowing beforehand, and it will reveal them as speculators whose "science" consists of guesses
¾the tea leaves cooperating, lucky ones.In any case, our complaint is not that the objections listed above are iron-clad and irrefutable theory-killers, but that they are being rudely ignored.
|
|
Vol. 11, No. 1
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 11, No. 1 Date: November 29, 2004 11:04 AM (For actual publication date see newsletter.) Title: Ten years
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|