PhilCheezSteaks

Hello Mr. Nye! You have shown great enthusiasm for Mark Z. Jacobson’s work, claiming we can switch to 100% wind, water and solar power if we just “decided to do it.” A few months ago, a group of scientists (Clack et al.) refuted this claim in a PNAS article, because Jacobson said we could increase hydro by a factor of ten to make his model work, even though there is not nearly enough precipitation available. Now, just recently, Jacobson is suing the National Academy of Sciences for defamation and “fraudulent claims.” It seems like science should not be decided in court. Do you still support this man? Even though climate scientists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley, and Ken Caldeira state the need for nuclear is non-negotiable because the numbers don’t add up without it? It is evidently true that the only highly-decarbonized grids like France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ontario and Costa Rica are hugely based on hydro and/or nuclear power. Nuclear has evidence to be the best tool in our climate toolkit, but yet you appear to be dismissing it, because the politics surrounding it are unpopular, similar to your previous stance on GM crops. Your thoughts?

Clack et al. article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ftyJjjJWt9M0ZoY0M1YTdqRHM/view?usp=sharing

Nobody wants a nuclear power plant around because they have been taught to be afraid of nuclear power. Even though it is hugely beneficial in limiting pollution and deaths. I think you are scared of nuclear power, too, and wrongly. It benefits the fossil fuel industry immensely to have nuclear power be unpopular. Maybe if it takes such time and paperwork to build a nuclear plant, the regulations are undue and bogus. Fossil fuels also benefit greatly if their biggest competitor is boggled down while they get to POLLUTE FOR FREE. We need you to support nuclear, outwardly. If you don't I am afraid you don't really care that much about climate change. NIMBY is not an excuse and is often based on irrational thoughts. Wind farms and solar panels and hydroelectric dams use more land than anything else, and many conservationists don't want them. Please stop rejecting nuclear, we could solve this thing so much faster with it. I am begging you!

Michael, a question about economics. I used to be a democrat and am a newly identified libertarian. As of now, I am under the impression that the biggest threat to climate progress is the government itself. They are trying to solve a technical problem with the biases and feelings of the general populace. Part of that is nuclear and climate illiteracy. I am a rare breed, given that the traditional environmental movement is associated with the left. Here is what I think should happen. Nobody in the energy industry should get subsidies, because that warps true market costs. Cap and trade ends up turning into a bogus "green credit" market. Here, people that consume fossil fuels, like Apple, can claim they are powered by 100% clean energy. I would be fine letting energy be solved just by a free-market, because nuclear would win out. It uses the least amount of resources for the most amount of energy. The only government interference should be Citizen's Climate Lobby's carbon fee and dividend, as put forth by James Hansen. Wouldn't you say this would be the most fair for all energy parties? Competition and innovation and capitalism might be our best bet.