Conservatives have long alleged that liberals and environmentalists have knee-jerk negative views of nuclear power, and twist science to support this prior ideological commitment.  Indeed, they’re making the allegation right now. Expecting as much, I hazarded a few weeks back that Fukushima might be a test case for whether a leftwing tendency to reject nuclear power based on an overblown sense of its risks is really a problem in the present.

It’s certainly true that since then, we have since seen a lot of anxiety and fear–much of it whipped up by the media, which in its frantic coverage has imparted a very skewed perception of the dread-to-risk ratio in the current case. By far the worst display of this phenomenon was Nancy Grace.

It’s also true that many liberals who opposed nuclear power in the 1960s and 1970s seem to be reliving much of that era. And there has been, from some on the left, clear exaggeration of the dangers of nuclear radiation and the amount of deaths (past and future) attributable to Chernobyl–Helen Caldicott being the prime example that I’ve seen so far.

However, I don’t see much evidence–though I’m willing to be convinced–that many on the U.S. left are making claims like Caldicott’s. (more…)

Ask and you shall receive.

Yesterday I called for proof of liberal/left misuse of science with respect to the risks of nuclear power, and now, George Monbiot has delivered. He calls out longtime anti-nuke activist Helen Caldicott for her claim that nearly 1 million people were killed by the Chernobyl disaster:

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl. (more…)

When the Fukushima disaster struck, I wrote the following, suggesting this would be a “natural experiment in the politicization of science”:

Today’s Republican Party has evolved to the point where the denial of climate science is mainstream within the party, or even dominant. Scarcely a day goes by without a Republican politician uttering something demonstrably incorrect on the subject.

So here’s the question: Will leading environmentalists, elected Democrats, and other influentials on the other side of the aisle be caught engaging in similar abuses in the unfolding nuclear debate? Will they say things provably incorrect, in the service of trying to tank nuclear power?

Or are liberals and conservatives today truly different when it comes to handling scientific information, no matter what their core political impulses may be?

I, for one, am betting on the latter outcome. Just read comments at my blog: It’s a bunch of old lefties saying how they’ve come around about nuclear power and how they’re willing to credit the benefits as well as the costs. Or just look at Matthew Yglesias: A good liberal who has just written, “I do think it’s worth speaking up for a nuclear industry a bit. The question is safe compared to what?”

Now David Ropeik, who writes about risk assessment, and has cautioned against the exaggeration of nuclear risks, has answered:

Blogger Chris Mooney writes on Desmogblog  “Are Liberals Science Deniers? Now’s a Good Time to Find Out.” He refers to the nuclear debate as ”…a natural experiment in the politicization of science,” and optimistically bets that anti-nuclear liberals will be more open minded and respectful of the scientific evidence than conservatives. And indeed some of his respondents, and comments elsewhere, come from self-identified liberals who are open to consideration of nuclear power. (more…)

This week, Harvard’s Science, Technology, and Society program, headed by Sheila Jasanoff, is hosting a provocative conference:

This meeting is the product of a year of conversations across several continents and dozens of institutions. It weaves together the hopes, aspirations, and—yes—frustrations of STS scholars from around the world who have committed their careers to studying the central role of science and technology in our social, political, and moral lives.

The meeting is in part a stock-taking. After two decades of increased public funding for STS, what can we say about our achievements as a “thought collective”? What have we learned from speaking the truths of our field to the power of established disciplines? Which areas of work do we recognize as displaying the greatest theoretical depth and creativity? What do we impart to STS scholars-in-the-making, and what can we do to ensure that their ideas are heard more widely and that they find appropriate academic homes? The three-day program addresses these questions: first, STS and the disciplines; second, STS and its theories; third, STS’s institutional challenges and opportunities. (more…)

The good news–another agency has put out a draft plan, and it can be found here.

The bad news–Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility says the plan is flawed or inadequate in a number of ways.

I haven’t dug in yet to evaluate this critique–but follow the links to see what you think.

My latest DeSmogBlog piece is about how some scientists–although by no means all, and scientists as a whole are getting better at this–misdiagnose the causes of science denial. If they’re ascribing denial to ignorance or stupidity, and if they’re prescribing education as the answer, then in general, they’re getting something very wrong:

As anyone who reads DeSmogBlog knows very well, the top climate skeptics are, you know, scientists. They are not ignorant of the scientific method. They may cleverly twist and abuse its findings, perhaps, but they all learned it, and were awarded advanced degrees for doing so. These are not “poorly educated people” we’re dealing with. Not remotely.

You can read the full post here, and I will have a lot more to say about this in a major article that’s expected out soon.

P.S.: Incidentally, if you want to know what touched me off about this, it was this editorial by two scientists in Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, containing this completely stunning passage, with the (to me) most amazing claim in italics:

Now, some people and special interests continue to propagate misleading information about climate change. They are using all of their newly gained knowledge (on how to fool the public) to enhance their greedy benefits. Once the method of scientific inquiry is understood, and the knowledge of how to evaluate scientific claims is at hand, people are not likely to be swayed or confused by misinformation. Some poorly educated people, on the other hand, will be at the whim of the profiteers, not being able to distinguish a lie from a statement based on scientific data. In fact, the more complex an explanation, the more distasteful it might appear to them. These people do not want to be burdened with factual information that their backgrounds do not prepare them to conceptualize; they want to believe in ideas that require minimal intellectual effort. They are likely to prefer a fairy tale to reality; it’s so much nicer (for a while) to think that no serious problems exist. Such people just continue to live in a fantasy world that will dissolve when reality becomes oppressive, just as does a dream fades away after one wakes. Then it will unfortunately be too late to correct the problems that were propagated by ignorance.

I submit to you that if you think this explains why we have problems with people rejecting science…well, keep reading this blog, because I plan to prove you wrong, and the DeSmogBlog piece is just the beginning.

The tragic events in Japan are absolutely devastating and difficult to fathom given the magnitude of compounding disasters. Over the past week I’ve received many emails in support or in protest of nuclear energy. The nightmare unfolding halfway around the world has clearly served to polarize public opinion, but I’d like to take this moment to remind readers that now is not the time for debate or knee-jerk decisions regarding U.S. energy policy.

In the digital age, anyone with an Internet connection can post an opinion, but we must wait to learn more from informed nuclear experts–and take steps to ensure this never happens again. So instead of jumping to rash conclusions about the future of nuclear development, it is a time for compassion. We must unite as a global community to help those hit hardest by the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis. Here are some ways to contribute–and please add more in comments:

AMERICAN RED CROSS: The American Red Cross is currently supporting and advising the Japanese Red Cross, which continues to assist the government in its response.  You can help people affected by disasters, like floods, fires, tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as countless other crises at home and around the world by making a donation to support American Red Cross Disaster Relief. Donate here.

GLOBALGIVING: Established a fund to disburse donations to organizations providing relief and emergency services to victims of the earthquake and tsunami. We are working with International Medical Corps, Save the Children, and other organizations on the ground to provide support. Our partners on the ground are working hard to provide immediate relief. Donate here.

SAVE THE CHILDREN:  Save the Children, which has worked in Japan since 1986, has an immediate goal of $5 million to launch longer-term recovery for children affected by Japan’s March 11 earthquake and tsunami. Save the Children has opened the first child-friendly space in Japan, protective environments where children can gather to play and share their experiences under the supervision of trained, caring adults. Donate here.

SALVATION ARMY: The Salvation Army has been in Japan since 1895 and is currently providing emergency assistance to those in need. Donate here.

AMERICARES: AmeriCares and its relief workers in Japan are working to deliver medicines and supplies to hospitals, shelters and health responders to treat and care for survivors.  The AmeriCares team began mobilizing within hours of the first reports of the dual disasters, dispatching an emergency response manager to Tokyo to direct the efforts of our relief workers in Sendai, the largest city closest to the impact zone. Our team is in direct contact with local officials, evacuation shelters and hospitals treating the injured in Miyagi, Fukushima and Iwate to determine health needs. Donate here.

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: A team of doctors flew to Sendai, where they will be delivering supplies, assessing needs, and identifying communities that have not yet been reached. We continue to coordinate with local health authorities and partners on critical gaps, providing technical expertise and assisting with logistics. Donate here.

SHELTERBOX: ShelterBox responds instantly to natural and man-made disasters by delivering boxes of aid to those who are most in need. The box includes a tent for a family of 10, cooker, blankets, water purification, tool kit and other items survivors need to rebuild their lives in the days, weeks and months following a disaster. Donate here.

Unfortunately, not a single Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee seems to agree. The Hill reports that all 31 House Republicans rejected amendments calling for “Congress to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, it is caused in large part by human activity and it is a threat to human health.”

H/T Political Wire

My latest DeSmogBlog piece is about the unfolding nuclear power debate, and how it fits into the context of arguments about the left, the right, and science. This is something that has been on my mind for some time:

When I and other demonstrated, during the George W. Bush years, that political conservatives had grown very strongly anti-science, we often heard what I would call the “nuclear counterargument.” The point was made that, hey, during the 1960s and 1970s, it was the political left that attacked science illegitimately—particularly around nuclear power.

Here’s a typical example of the charge, from the George C. Marshall Institute book Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking (2003):

To attack the nuclear power industry, [activists] needed ammunition, and it was readily found. They only had to go through the nuclear power risk analysis literature and pick out some of the imagined accident scenarios with the number of deaths expected from them. Of course, they ignored the very tiny probabilities of occurrence attached to these scenarios, and they never considered the fact that alternate technologies were causing far more deaths. Quoting from the published scientific analyses gave the environmentalists credibility and even made them seem like technical experts. (Bernard L. Cohen, “Nuclear Power,” p. 146) (more…)

One of the most inspiring events I’ve attended in past years was the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative meeting. It’s a unique environment where heads of state, government and business leaders, scholars, and NGO directors come together “to analyze pressing global challenges, discuss the most effective solutions, and build lasting partnerships that enable them to create positive social change.” Members at last years meeting made close to 300 new commitments on issues involving economic empowerment, energy and the environment, education, global health, and more. Since launching CGI, they have put $63 billion toward improving nearly 300 million lives in over 170 countries. In other words, CGI demonstrates that we are truly becoming a global community.

Today President Clinton announced the Fourth Annual Clinton Global Initiative University Meeting, which will take place at the UC San Diego from April 1-3. Approximately 1,000 students will come together from all over the world to meet with non-profit leaders, entrepreneurs, and celebrities engaged in efforts to create positive change. Each student will make a Commitment to Action – a detailed plan for improving lives within one of CGI U’s focus areas: education, environment & climate change, peace & human rights, poverty alleviation, and public health. Since 2008, this university event has brought together more than 2,500 students from 575 schools in 99 countries.  As Clinton explains:

“Their work has improved the lives of thousands of people around the world. I am looking forward to convening the next generation of global leaders once again, so they can learn from each other and gain practical skills that will help them turn their ideas into real change.”

What comes out of CGI U? (more…)