AP Story on “Older activists, younger crowd” Anti-Nukes
August 30th, 2010
|
| Share |
I’m not sure why this was even reported, although I suspect it was just a reporter with some kind of agenda. The Associated Press usually reports news stories that are actually topical and related to current events – not just random lifestyle and interest stories. However, a recent report from the AP has been making the rounds about older nuclear activists who are trying to renew their fight against nuclear energy as the US embarks on a new round of nuclear power plant construction.
Older activists, younger crowd team to fight nukes
DES MOINES, Iowa — It’s been 33 years since Raye Fleming’s arrest outside Southern California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, near the height of the anti-nuclear power furor.
That was the first arrest of many and, Fleming believed, such actions paid off as a generation of Americans turned against nuclear power.
“It was just the correct, moral thing to do,” said 66-year-old Fleming.
But after years of believing they had won the fight against nuclear energy, activists suddenly feel the battle is starting all over again. And they’re trying to figure out how to win in an era of Facebook and Twitter as well as get the younger generation involved in the movement.
Lately, the option for nuclear energy has gotten more popular.
President Barack Obama has backed billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If approved, they would be the first nuclear power plants in the U.S. to begin construction in almost three decades. Political support for nuclear power has grown, especially after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlighted risks of fossil fuel production. And people are more open to nuclear energy.
For those like Fleming, that change is hard to understand.
“A call for more nuclear power plants,” sighed Fleming, of Arroyo Grande, Calif. “It’s still not safe, there’s still no solution to the waste storage and it’s costly.”
For many, the issue isn’t as simple as it once was. Concerns about global warming have left several environmentalists unsure about what really is the “green” side of the issue, and it’s been more than 30 years since the last high-profile accident in the U.S.
To begin with, the article seems to start off with the premis that nuclear power will be opposed (and perhaps should be opposed) as a given. There’s no real justification for *why* it’s a bad thing, other than the obligatory nod to the “waste and safety” issues. There is the assumption that it is somehow moral to oppose nuclear energy. It sounds a lot like a washed-up hippie fighting a losing cause over an issue she doesn’t even fully understand.
It has been 30 years since Three Mile Island, but I still am left scratching my head over the significance of that incident. Although it is often cited as the “Worst Nuclear Accident in US History,” Three Mile Island didn’t kill, injure or even endanger a single person and no property outside the plant’s containment structure was damaged in any way.
Some, like Patrick Moore, have simply changed their minds. He was once a leader in the anti-nuclear movement, and now he’s co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports the expansion of nuclear power.
“I personally believe that because we were so focused at that time on the threat of all-out nuclear war and the emotional aspect of that, we were a bit blinded and included nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons as if everything nuclear was evil,” he said.
“The bottom line is, I believe we made a mistake,” he added, noting that while construction costs for nuclear plants are high, operating costs are low. He also contends nuclear energy is a safe and valuable resource.
I’m glad they included Patrick Moore. He’s been a huge thorn in the side of Greenpeace and the “Green” mainline since he parted ways with the organization several years ago. Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of the organization, which originally was focused primarily on the environmental impacts from nuclear weapons testing. At the time, France was still conducting atmospheric tests and the US had conducted one of the largest underground tests at Amchitka Island. The group quickly expanded to include protests against nuclear energy in general.
Patrick Moore now considers it a mistake to make this association and to fall into the knee-jerk antinuclear policy of Greenpeace and organizations like it. The group is much different than it was at its founding. It’s become very rich and powerful and has managed to preform numerous high profile stunts, while continuing to rake in enormous donations and grants.
As an environmentalist, Patrick Moore simply seeks a power source that is low impact and can provide the energy society needs. That is why he is all for nuclear energy.
“It’s 2010. It’s not 1979. It’s a different generation. There are different styles,” said Michael Mariotte, a longtime opponent of nuclear power who heads the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The whole idea of mass marches and that kind of thing doesn’t have the same kind of resonance as back then.”
Mariotte’s group alerts members to big issues via Facebook, links to anti-nuclear stories through Twitter and posts videos on YouTube.
For one group in Georgia, it’s the newer crop that really has brought those technological skills to the table and a passion to educate others via the Internet, said Glenn Carroll, the coordinator with Nuclear Watch South, which opposes the proposed reactors in Georgia.
Funny, it doesn’t seem to me like it’s changed that much. Horror stories, scare tactics and overblown claims about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl are still the cornerstone of many of these groups. Trying to paint nuclear as being too scary and dangerous to let near you (or your CHILDREN) is a mainstay that never died.
The media has changed, of course. Online media has taken over from mailed newsletters and Facebook and Twitter have replaced college radio stations and megaphones. The message is still the same tired old one that has been used for decades. But then again, what more is there do say? Appeals to fear certainly do work, at least when people are uneducated enough on an issue.
Jane Magers of Des Moines, Iowa, has fought nuclear power for nearly 40 years. She senses a change, a feeling that “we’ve got to have energy at all costs.”
But Magers said she’s confident that the increased support for nuclear energy will melt away when utilities announce where they intend to build. No one, she said, wants to live near a nuclear plant.
“The groundswell (against nuclear power) will come when they announce where the sites are,” she said.
Ah yes, the old appeal to NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). Basically the idea that while the public may support nuclear power in general, if enough attention can be focused on the community where a plant is to be built, then fear and a belief that the plant may hurt property values can always be leveraged to try to deny each and every location to the nuclear power plant.
Of course, it’s hard to blame someone for not wanting a huge industrial facility of any kind in their back yard. Personally, while I would have no problem living near a nuclear power plant, I’m willing to say that I’d want it to be far enough away that the hum of the turbines does not keep me awake at night.
NIMBY has its limits, though. Plenty of people live near coal power plants and a nuclear power plant would be a huge upgrade in their situation. This is why I propose making a specific point of replacing coal burners with nuclear plants in the same region. A good example would be Bellefonte, which, if opened, would mean the nearby Widows Creek dirt burner could be shut down.
In the end their arguments are as tired and washed up as these old hippies. 30 years is a lot of time to learn some things. Too bad so many choose not to. Ultimately, the movement is one of a lot of aging has-beens who are struggling to stay relevant as knowledge of nuclear energy moves forward. In the post-Cold War era, people are no longer obsessed with the fear of being vaporized by nuclear weapons and making the connection to peaceful energy is harder. The internet has also empowered a great deal of pro-nuclear grass-roots activism. If the old movement is to stay alive, they will need to recruit more young and naive pawns. While there’s no shortage of those, there are also many educated individuals who are willing to oppose their nonsense.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, History, Nuclear, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 30th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
I read this and found it to be par for the course. I did enjoy the closing lines. “Just you wait until they announce where they’re going to put them!”
Er…
You mean at South Texas Project, Bellefonte, North Anna, William States Lee, Shearon Harris, Grand Gulf, Calvert Cliffs, Vogtle, V.C. Summer, Levy County, Fermi, Comanche Peak…the sites named in COL applications which have been docketed by the NRC? As in, already publicly known information? For years now?
…
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
There are several things working against a repeat of the sort of antinuclear movement that these folk (and me) remember. For one thing there isn’t the number of people that can identify as a homogeneous group the way the Boomers could. In other words, the movement cannot depend on the lemming effect to guarantee the sort of unthinking mass support that antinuclear activities enjoyed back then.
The other main reason, as Patrick Moore correctly observed, there is not the same knee-jerk link being made in the public mind between nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons. It is difficult for those that were not there to understand just how interwoven these were, something that was not helped by the utter dirth of real information available on the workings of nuclear energy. Nuclear power was simply seen as a fig-leaf for weapons production, and very little was done to disabuse the public of this by ether side.
However Magers is correct that the NIMBY issues are going to be the primary ones in the fights to come, however the advantage the builders of new plants have this time, is that they can pick the battlegrounds. There are more than a few communities willing to welcome this sort of facility – enough so that the places that won’t can be passed over.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 12:04 am
IMBY! IMBY! I want a nuclear reactor In My BackYard!!! There used to be one a few blocks from me, but then is was dismantled.
That would be awesome, just as long as it’s built by professionals who really know what they’re doing rather than undergrads ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Scavenger_Hunt ) or a 17-year-old boy scout ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn ).
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 12:20 am
The last graphic takes the cake. Yeah… not quite the same as a hippie chick in her prime. I feel bad for those who were there and don’t have the benefit of having pixilation over certain parts.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 8:21 am
“Just you wait until they announce where they’re going to put them!”
The way things have been going, I don’t think people will mind too much, as long as the announcement includes mention of how many people will be employed building the thing.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 9:36 am
Like Stephen, I am all for IMBY’ism here. Unfortunatley my backyard is not big enough but they are building a huge site both south of me and (it would seem) to the north of me, well within comfortable commuting distance in case one of the facilities would need a competent engineer/scientist to run one aspect of the operations…
Still, I may yet end up working for the regulator, brrr……
It is quite funny how the Anti-nukes still kling to the arguments of:
1. TMI
2. Chernobyl
3. Nuclear Weapons
The slightly more educated ones actually argue about waste, cost and “safety”.
Hmm, what is the single technology that is green and actually work?
Windpower you say? A simple calculation (back of a napkin type of thing, don’t tell my government as I am breaking the law here, I am not joking!);
3 MW windturbine running at 22% loadfactor [windstat] cost about 3 million Euros each (~8 million $), to replace one AP1000 you would need ~1,515 of these beasts at a direct cost of 12.1 billion $. Over the lifespan (20 years) of the turbines the capital cost would land at about 35 billion $. Add mainenance to that cost and you have the price of production as fuel is free. You will notice that the price of electricity production will land way above 10-15 cents/kWh. But wait, it gets better, the windturbine only lasts 20 years so you need to repeat build 3 times to replace an 1000 MWe NPP which will last 60. You also need to completely rebuild the electricity grid to cope with the fickle nature of windgeneration not to mention the infrastructure to get the electricity to the grid from the generation sites. Also you will need power storage (doesn’t exist yet) or the equal amount of reactive production to balance out power needed when there is no wind.
The same calulation on a nuclear powerplant with “a reasonable rate of return” (20%) would yield an electricity cost of 3.5-4.5 cents/kWh (I have seen no costs projections for a 1 GWe unit so this is based on a 1.6 GWe unit). The capital cost for this NPP is about 27.7 billion $ over 60 years, maintenance and fuel comes on top of that. Just comparing capital costs will show the economics of scale in favour of NP-generation.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 9:47 am
Hmmm, google mucked up my dollar conversion, could DrBuzzo please remove my posts so I can redo the calculations?
Thanks so much, the differance is slightly less as I have posted but still significant.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Stephen said:
I’m game. Close to me means shorter power lines, which means less chance of an outage.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I’m reminded of being confronted by a young activist who was clearly just starting out with her organization, outside a bookstore. We talked a little bit, and their documentation talked only about weaning off petroleum-produced energy – a worthwhile goal in my opinion. So I asked where her organization stood on nuclear power, and after going through her literature it was mentioned nowhere. I got about 20 minutes to tell her about how it’s the only power source that can be ramped up quickly enough and reliably enough to replace petroleum-power by 2050, how some modern designs are entirely self-contained and how fuel reprocessing largely answered the nuclear waste problem while providing useful radioisotopes for medical and industrial use.
Then her handler came over, and my new friend turned to her all chipper and started talking about what I’d mentioned and how she didn’t see reference anywhere in the literature. She was told flatly “we are against nuclear power,” with no justification, though her cheery young activist-in-training seemed skeptical.
It sounds like a lot of the newer up-and-coming organizations are taking no public stance on nuclear power. That’s a huge step from where we were in the 80s, certainly. Here’s hoping this trend continues.It provides an in to change some of these young minds before they get too corrupted by the anti-nuke propaganda.
(for reference, I’m in Silicon Valley. You’d -think- people around here would know better by default…)
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
MrNiceguy said:
I definitely agree.
By highlighting the construction jobs followed by the high paying jobs to run the plants, many communities will be lining up and offering incentives.
There is some talk of siting a plant on part of the DOE property where I work and with local unemployment around 15% every politician from the dog catcher up to the governor is asking what they can do to help the process along. A few ‘but-what-about-the-children’ types, but they quickly saw they were seriously outnumbered and I haven’t heard a peep from them in months.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
khadjair said:
Nah … you’re in California. It’s not surprising.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
FYI: wihile not a direct comment on the aging nuclear protesters article above, this might be something of interest to you. It’s free, anyway……
Having worked in the US energy sector for over 20 years, I’m concerned about the vast knowledge gap in the public and the press and academia regarding the real world problems in producing cheap electric power. Achieving a better understanding of our energy present will surely help us develop a better energy future. For a free, realistic portrait of this generation of US nuclear plants, I suggest my “Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power.” It is written as a thriller to avoid reader boredom – and that seems to be working, judging from the comments I’ve received at the website. Why not hear what someone in the bowels of the industry has to say? It is free online, or it’s in paperback. See http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
“I got to about page four and I was hooked, I couldn’t put it down.
… It was very easy to read, the characters were well described, and they were vibrant.”
– DAVID LEVY, noted science author and Parade Magazine contributor. You can hear David Levy’s interview with the author of Rad Decision at http://www.letstalkstars.com/recent_2010.htm
“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read”
– STEWART BRAND, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Matte said:
Seriously, what else do they have?
These are the only issues left that have any resonance with the general public, and even then, they are not as evocative as they once were.
Protesters are not the force they were in the past, and without the Cold War keeping everyone on tenterhooks wondering if Armageddon was going o start any minute, it is unlikely they will ever be able to muster those sorts of numbers again.
The real enemy now is from those parts of the energy sector that stand to loose the most from competition with nuclear power. Old hippies are just a sideshow at this point.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I don’t quite agree with DV8 that NIMBY issues will be one of the bigger ones the industry faces. I think this is one of the areas where our story is strongest. The “activist” is comically, 180-degrees wrong on this issue.
We now have 65 or so nuclear sites, and we won’t need any more, for the forseeable future. Very few of the proposed new builds are on greenfield sites. So, how do the people living next to our current reactors feel about adding new units to the local site? They are overwhelmingly supportive, with 75%-80% of the people wanting new plants, and communities actually engaging in bidding wars for new plants.
This is because they’ve lived with reactors for 20-30 years. As a result, not only are they used to them in general, but they’ve become aware of the fact that they are safe, don’t pollute, provide tons of high-paying jobs for people in the region, and provide an enormous tax base (resulting in low local taxes but lavish local services).
NIMBY resistance will NOT be a significant issue for nuclear new build. In fact, wind farms are experiencing much higher levels of resistance. Nuclear’s main problem is (and always has been) high capital costs and gettng financing (i.e., high risk perception among investors).
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
JimHopf said:
Well what I said is that the builders can pick and choose, thus skirting this problem, however having said that, any real resistance to new nuclear facilities will be from NIMBY, rather than general antinuclear feelings. The issues will be the perceived risk to property values, not radiation. You see this on bodies of water that feature very expensive homes, where the owners fear that the sight of a nuclear power plant on the shore will make their houses difficult to sell.
This isn’t a killer, by any means, but it will be something that will happen, and the traditional antinuclear movement will try and leverage these to keep themselves relevant.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2010 at 12:24 am
I am working on a post about some of the most beautiful power plants in the world and how asterisk quality may be able to address the whole issue of NIMBY, and may have other benefits in terms of PR and corporate image. Obviously power plants are primarily to generate power, so there’s a limit to how much might be spent on making them pleasing to the eye.
Toronto Power Generating Station is one rather extreme example. It’s a former powerhouse at Niagra Falls. Operated from 1906 to the early 1970’s.
The design is worthy of the Parlament of a major European country or perhaps a national library or major museum. Most Ivy League universities don’t boast a building as ornate as Toronto Power Generating Station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Power_Generating_Station
Then, of course, there’s the iconic Battersea power station. I’d have been happy to live near it if it weren’t a coal burner that belched out smoke. Of course, it doesn’t now.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2010 at 1:44 am
drbuzz0 said:
Do you think that ugly modernist architecture is a problem in general, because it gives ammo to the anti-industrial movement?
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 am
It is sad that all they can do is bring up TMI over and over again when TMI is just a whimper of an effect. If they want actual deaths and a radioactive problem they should go with Idaho Falls, 1961 where 3 technicians died or perhaps the Detroit Michigan Sodium cooled reactor that had half the core melt in an accident back in 1966.
Oh wait those are all really old and just don’t have any association in peoples minds. Daft idiots, oh and I desperately would love an nuclear plant in my back yard.
For those curious the Idaho Falls plant had a warped fuel rod and the technicians were attempting to pull it up to adjust the reaction when it suddenly broke free and came up to far allowing the reactor to over heat and generate steam in the core. This ejected the fuel rod out of the core rather vigorously leading to the deaths of the technicians and the contamination of the containment vessel. Which was the extent of the problem. Or so my memory says.
The sodium cooled reactor was experimental and it’s melt down is why they don’t put little pyramid shaped things at the bottom of the vessel and weld them there. One broke free and floated up blocking the flow of coolant through the core. I think the pyramid things were there to influence the flow through the vessel but I can’t remember the exact theory they put them in there for. Anyway both are accidents that happened in 1st generation experimental reactors. But both are much better than Three Mile Island if you want to scare people.
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 am
There is another aspect to this as well. In the 60’s and 70’s when opposition to nuclear power gained traction there was a fairly good memory of the use of nuclear weapons. Along with this had been the cold war with the constant threat of them being held over people for a generation. This linked nuclear weapons to nuclear power in peoples minds even if the link was fairly tenuous.
The last 30 years have pretty much had a generation grow up that doesn’t worry about nuclear war and doesn’t really remember the use of nuclear weapons. This means that the association of nuclear to bomb isn’t something young people tend towards. And that means that people’s opposition if they have any tends to be based on some other aspect. This is slowly eroding the anti nuclear attitudes that are out there as the nuke = bomb crowd slowly die off.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 6:42 am
http://www.survivalblog.com/
Any thoughts on the nuclear article about a solar flare and nuclear spent fuel?
Thanks,
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Edward Fullam said:
Why not just use a fire truck to pump from the nearest body of water into the spent fuel pool?
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 8:54 am
This is no time to get complacent regarding the anti-nuclear environmental fruitcake opposition. Just because 74% of the public favors nuclear energy means nothing. These folks are extremely well funded and will show-up at a public hearing on a nuclear plant in Georgia all the way from Washington state. The pro-nuclear forces need to make sure that citizens from the local areas where plants are being proposed are at public hearings, speak-out and greatly outnumber the opposition. That is the only way any plants will ever be built.By the way if you want to get one of these fruitcakes riled up just ask them where their funding is coming from(a disportionate amount from right wing and elite groups they claim to oppose).
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Edward Fullam said:
Alright. There are a number of problems with this.
First, lets consider what would happen if all power is lost to a nuclear plant as far as the spent fuel goes. If all power is lost, including the diesel generators, which have several days of fuel at least and the various passive systems like gravity-fed water feeds and such, then the water in the spent fuel pool won’t circulate and be replenished.
The spent fuel pool contains a minimum of about 25 feet of water between the surface and the spent fuel holding area. It’s also quite large and usually has additional areas that don’t store spent fuel for the fuel to transit through and be manipulated in. This water keeps the spent fuel cool and keeps the workers shielded from the fuel.
Without recirculation the water will start to heat up and begin to evaporate. It won’t boil, except perhaps some localized boiling at the surface of the freshest spent fuel, but it will start to evaporate as the spent fuel will make it fairly warm.
It’s going to take some time for all this water to evaporate, even if a small portion is boiling. It will take at least many days, possibly several weeks or more than a couple months to evaporate off all that 25+ feet of water, especially in a structure with a roof. Eventually the spent fuel will start to become exposed to the air. At this point it is no longer being cooled by water convection but only by the convection of air.
Air cooling for spent fuel that is over about a year old is considered perfectly safe. If the reactor has not been refueled in a year or more, then there’s no problem other than the lack of shielding. However, fresh spent fuel needs more cooling. My estimate is that about one to two months old fuel might be hot enough to cause problems. What could happen? If exposed to air alone it will heat up and the cladding could burn off. This would only be a few few elements and quickly they would cool and no longer be so hot, after maybe a couple of months.
However, I’m not even sure this would happen. I think that in all likelihood, by the time the water is gone the spent fuel will have decayed enough that it won;t be dangerously hot with just air cooling.
Now as for an EMP or solar flare:
That’s another issue entirely, but it’s often been overstated. Such an event would not have much effect on systems like generators, automobiles, small electronic devices and so on. It might have an effect on the power grid. What you’re talking about here is a huge inductive pulse that can create power surges in very long wires. they have to be long to act as effective antennas. This could potentially overload transformers and switchgear. It could potentially also fry communications systems that have antennas connected to sensitive electronics.
I don’t think it would likely cause that much damage permanently though. Power grids experience huge surges when they’re hit by lightning, which is not terribly uncommon. For this reason they are designed with some level of protection, like lightning arresters and spark gaps that let the excessive current go to the ground. These measures are not always 100% reliable and sometimes a surge can damage equipment, but usually it’s limited to some of the weaker links which, once broken, stop the surge from going any further.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 10:34 am
drbuzz0 said:
Another way of putting it is to consider that in the aftermath of any EMP event powerful enough to fuse the equipment (motors, generators, control apparatus, and such) of a nuclear power plant, the problems at that plant would be of secondary importance.
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 3:28 am
When dealing with nuclear power generation there is always hazardous waste to consider and if this is still not addressed even after 30 years there is reason for us to be concerned and reason to keep on fighting.
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Clinton Pope said:
It was addressed more than 30 years ago.
The only problem was that idiots who didn’t understand the science started lying and claiming it was an unsolved problem.
BTW: Has the waste problem with methane burning been addressed yet?
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Clinton Pope said:
Have they solved the problems with the hazardous waste from producing photovoltaic panels? Or the massive hazardous mining waste from producing the rare earth metals needed for advanced wind turbines?
Solve the hazardous waste problems associated with wind and solar power then come back.
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Every year, a typical nuclear power reactor produces about four cubic meters of high level radioactive waste, 100 cubic meters of intermediate-level waste, and 530 cubic meters of low-level waste. All of which is solid, or easily converted into solid, and can be buried with ease. Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. More than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored landfills and surface impoundments.
The fact of the matter is the waste problem has been solved for nuclear energy for some time. Antinuclear militants continue to flog that dead horse in the face of much, much worse environmental abuse from dirt-burners. The only real question is why?
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
DV82XL said:
You also left out the CO2 that is recklessly disposed of in the atmosphere as well as a lot of other stuff that just goes up the smokestack.
DV82XL said:
Because that’s what they’re paid to do (at least for the professional activists).
Quote Comment