Anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof calls for more nuclear power

Renewables “Mickey mouse” heh…

LONDON (Reuters) – Anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof joined the global warming debate on Thursday with a call for the rapid expansion of nuclear power, describing renewable energy as a “Mickey Mouse” answer to the climate crisis.

(…)

The Irish former rock star, known for his campaigning on poverty relief in Africa, was writing on a blog set up by carmaker Lexus to promote hybrid road vehicles.

“The reality is that we need to do much more than change the type of car we drive to make an impact on climate change. In the UK, we'll soon have to scramble for more nuclear power,” Geldof wrote.

“On this issue, I don't care what anyone says: we're going to go with it, big-time. We may mess around with wind and waves and other renewable energy sources, trying to make them sustainable, but they're not. They're Mickey Mouse,” he added.

More.

Thanks to Atomic Rabbit for this one!

5 thoughts on “Anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof calls for more nuclear power

  1. I strongly believe that he is right, although I hope that we will put more R & D into developing better nuclear technologies than the one which we are currently using. We have not chosen a good nuclear technology.

    When I made posts on a couple anti-nuclear sites and suggested supporting more nuclear R & D, I was excoriated, sometimes in an obscene manner. I have lost all patience with the anti-nuclear crowd. They remind me of what Emerson said: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….” One would think that they’d study issues and modify their positions as new information becomes available, but they do not.

    Until a few years ago, I strongly supported renewable energy sources and, although I had strong reservations about nuclear power, I was never totally opposed to it. In response to clear evidence that renewable energy had only a limited rôle to play, I modified my position.

    • I wish you could put that question to Prez. Obama.

      That such as Greenpeace campaign on AGW and against nuclear defies logic. Until you consider their fund-raising strategies. I think it is all about funds, not about logic, certainly not about science.

      • I wish you could put that question to Prez. Obama.

        If you could get an honest answer out of him (yeah, right), he’d probably tell you that he needs the support of certain interests which are anti-nuclear.

        That such as Greenpeace campaign on AGW and against nuclear defies logic.

        It’s perfect logic for them to support the interests of their financial backers.  Even the Sierra Club dropped its opposition to immigration because so much of its money came from open-borders David Gelbaum.  You’re absolutely correct, it’s money and realpolitik over principle.

Comments are closed.