The Less Scary Nuclear Option

Green, black and yellow. It’s not the flag of yet another new nation approved by the U.N. Green, black and yellow are the colors representing the environmental disaster that, a handful of years after Katrina, is trampling on the southern coast of the United States, from Louisiana to Florida. The green is the color of the most dogmatic and uncompromising environmentalism, which shouted betrayal when a president, black and pragmatically environmentalist, declared himself pro-nuclear to reduce pollution and the risks associated with more and more “daring” drilling.

There is the black of the tide of oil that by now has begun to lap the coast, letting down a part of the country already exhausted and that reminds us how manmade disasters almost invariably have two characteristics: They are worse than natural disasters, and they could almost always be avoided with a little more caution and a little less greed. Finally, there is the yellow, the color traditionally associated with danger. The color that showed up in the Gulf of Mexico, but also the one evoked in every speech about nuclear weapons. The color that reminds us of the growing Chinese energy demand, associated with the absolute recklessness put on display so far by Beijing authorities on ecological and environmental issues.

Metaphors aside, while looking for those responsible for such a disaster and trying to run for cover, the U.S. also tries to quantify the damage and to understand how many decades it will take to put the ecosystem of the area more or less back in shape. We should have one thing clear in our heads. Due to growing energy demand and prices that will only go up, accidents like these will be more frequent not less. We will drill more and in extreme situations to meet the demand. The growth of prices will call for the drilling in conditions and in places so far spared by platforms and towers. If we add the appetites of companies and the lack of scruples of non-democratic governments, our prediction becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway, the very magnitude of the tragedy also gives us the opportunity to seriously consider without prejudice whether the world can afford to continue to focus almost exclusively on oil and fossil fuels, substituting enough renewable energy to absolve our bad conscience, or whether at the beginning of the twenty-first century the nuclear option could be, in the end, the less dangerous investment. Here comes the yellow again, with data chasing and contradicting itself, with “excuses” in place of evidence and absolute security everywhere. The public has the right to be informed of the progress towards safer nuclear power as well as unresolved issues (starting with the oil spill).

It is a duty that has to be taken on by the scientific community and the politicians, each with their own responsibility. The scientists must present the most comprehensive picture possible of the current situation and reasonable future expectations; politicians must make the decisions they deem appropriate, explain them and convince the public of the goodness of the choice made. All of us have the duty to make good use of the weight of an informed and unbiased opinion, thinking a bit more, even in this area, for future generations and a bit less about our own “backyard.” We have the duty to assume, whatever the option, our own responsibilities.