Not unless people react. If power is left in the hands of
transnational investors, the people will just die.
Nuclear power
At a conference in Washington DC, a woman in the audience got up
and decried the fact that you’re in favor of nuclear power. Are you?
No. I don’t think anybody’s in favor of nuclear power, even
business, because it’s too expensive. But what I am in favor of is
being rational on the topic. That means recognizing that the question
of nuclear power isn’t a moral one—it’s a technical one. You have to
ask what the consequences of nuclear power are, versus the
alternatives.
There’s a range of other alternatives, including conservation,
solar and so on. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. But
imagine that the only alternatives were hydrocarbons and nuclear
power. If you had to have one or the other, you’d have to ask
yourself which is more dangerous to the environment, to human
life, to human society. It’s not an entirely simple question.
For example, suppose that fusion were a feasible alternative. It
could turn out to be nonpolluting. But there are also negative
factors. Any form of nuclear power involves quite serious problems
of radioactive waste disposal, and can also contribute to nuclear
weapons proliferation. Fusion would require a high degree of
centralization of state power too.
On the other hand, the hydrocarbon industry, which is highly
polluting, also promotes centralization. The energy corporations are
some of the biggest in the world, and the Pentagon system is
constructed to a significant degree to maintain their power.
In other words, there are questions that have to be thought
through. They’re not simple.