No, This Is Not the End of Tariffs
The United Nations Just Gave Us Another Reason Not to Take It Seriously
About Those Detroit Officers Facing Termination for Contacting Border Patrol...
A Record Number of Lawmakers Are Calling It Quits – What's Going to...
JPMorgan Finally Admitted What It Did to Trump After 2020 Election
Report: Americans May Have Been Kidnapped in Puerto Vallarta
You'll Own Nothing: Latest Scottish Wealth Tax Plan Targets Property, Pensions and Jewelry
Check Out This Daily Mail Headline About Mexican Tourists Who Are Terrified of...
These Previous Remarks by Mexican President Sheinbaum Explain Why the Cartel Caused Chaos...
Your Kid Doesn’t Need Sushi. He Needs to Hear the Word ‘No.’
Leaked DNC Autopsy of 2024 Election Blames This for Kamala's Loss to President...
Tony Evers Just Guaranteed Wisconsin Energy Bills Will Skyrocket for the Next 20...
Maryland Bill Would Revamp Useless Anti-Gun Effort, Make It Just as Useless
Even CNN Can’t Defend the Failures of Democrat-Run Metropolitan Cities
Bessent Details Plan to Restore Tariffs While Clashing With CNN's Dana Bash Over...
Tipsheet

The Inconvenient Truth About Green Activists' Crusade Against Nuclear

The Inconvenient Truth About Green Activists' Crusade Against Nuclear

Climate activists who have successfully vilified nuclear energy, leading to plant closures around the developed world, may be surprised to learn that their efforts have actually increased greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report from The Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research center.

Advertisement

“Premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants in developed countries, for instance, have caused additional annual carbon emissions that now total 138.1 million metric tons (Mt) of CO2 equivalents a year,” the report states. “This yearly carbon footprint is nearly equal to the combined annual emissions from 37 African countries, with a total population of 455 million people.”

The paper explains that phasing out clean energy sources like nuclear increases carbon emissions because there has to be a replacement energy source, and more often than not, it is fossil fuels. The effect on carbon emissions over the last decade from such moves has been significant. 

In total, since 2012, the carbon costs of nuclear phaseout policies in developed countries add up to about 800 million tons of CO2. To place that number into context, that’s enough CO2 emissions to melt 2400 km2 of Arctic summer sea ice, plus or minus another 240 km2. It equates to a full two years of nationwide fossil CO2 emissions from a medium-sized country like Turkey, Australia, or the United Kingdom, or more than 0.1 parts per million of the 416 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere.

These totally unnecessary carbon emissions will continue to grow over the coming decades, with one academic paper estimating that added global emissions from Germany’s nuclear phaseout alone will total 1100 Mt of CO2 by 2035. With each additional year, the consequences of reactor shutdown decisions made years ago continue to accumulate around the world. (The Breakthrough Institute)

Advertisement

Related:

CLIMATE ALARMISM


As nuclear proponent Michael Shellenberger has explained, the true reason climate activists oppose nuclear energy is because it means renewables are unnecessary. 

"The problem with nuclear is that it doesn’t demand the radical re-making of society, like renewables do, and it doesn’t require grand fantasies of humankind harmonizing with nature," he wrote in Forbes. 

"Nor does nuclear provide cover for funnelling billions to progressive interest groups in the name of 'community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture, or transit systems,'" he continued. 

"All nuclear does is grow societal wealth, increase wages, and decouple the economy from pollution and environmental destruction," Shellenberger added. "No wonder they hate it so much."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement