This is an entry about nuclear power and Al Gore that will begin with a discussion of events in the 1850's - when of course it was impossible for people to imagine either nuclear power or the political events that created a man like Al Gore.
I choose to start this way, referring to events in the 1850's, in part because my current bedtime reading is Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, A Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. This excellent book describes how Lincoln, a back country lawyer and former congressman with a certain flair for words, worked closely with some of his strongest rivals for power, and consistently outmaneuvered them as rivals while bringing their enormous talents to bear on resolving the most enormous issues of those times: The inextricably intertwined issues of slavery, national union, and, ultimately, civil war. In their time, these issues were all seen as intractable. It seemed to many, if not exactly all, of Lincoln's contemporaries that the solution to one issue would necessarily constrain the others, that no general solution existed.
Slavery, as everyone knew then and now, was the root issue though.
One of the things of which students of American History will be aware is that Lincoln in the 1850's was considered in his time a moderate an issue that has no moral ambiguity today: Slavery. His chief rivals, William Seward and Salmon Chase, openly held views that are more in line with our 21st century attitudes - that slavery was an absolutely abysmal moral stain on the nation that must be brought ultimately to extinction. By contrast before and after being elected President, Lincoln publicly professed that he was perfectly willing to allow slavery to persist where it already existed, and that he merely opposed its extension to territories where it did not exist yet. In the end though, Lincoln was able to accomplish what - to all available evidence - his more radical rivals could not accomplish. He ended slavery. He preserved the Union. He fought and won a terrible Civil War.
How?
Lincoln, we now know, had one of the finest literary and political minds, if not the finest such mind, ever to have set foot on this continent. Most school children today are familiar with his beautiful, transcendent political speeches, the spare, succinct elegance that could sum the meaning of the national essence in a few short sentences. But what Goodwin's book - and many other books on Lincoln consistently demonstrate - is that Lincoln's success and strength derived not only from what he said, but also from what he didn't say.
Historians are still trying to discern what Lincoln was actually thinking, how his attitudes and opinions evolved, what his inner life was actually like. Despite the meticulous examination of almost every detail of Lincoln's life that can be discerned, in my view, we still just do not know. Lincoln kept his own counsel mostly, and even when addressing some of the most serious issues that a head of state could possibly need to address, spoke in aphorisms, sometimes in ways that were actually evasive.
This brings me to Al Gore, who since 2000, I have supported and admired and who I regard as the only President-elected of the history of the United States not to have been seated in the White House. A caveat: In talking about Lincoln before speaking of Mr. Gore, my point is not to say that Al Gore is like Lincoln or should be or must be like Lincoln. I only mean to evoke a sense that if one wants to look at a leader who succeeds, one must not expect the period of his or her leadership to be marked by rigid statements of principle. Sometimes it is far better to evoke the issue - as Lincoln, although "moderate" continually evoked slavery in the time leading up to his Presidential run - than it is to announce in bald terms what should be done about the issue: Like it or not, had Lincoln been a radical abolitionist in 1860, he probably would not have been elected President. (As it was, he barely made it.)
I am a climate change radical. I believe that climate change is without question the most serious issue facing humanity by far. I care about other issues like Iraq, but Iraq can be survived. Other issues worker's rights and poverty and civil rights, are all important, but the failure to address these issues in the short term will not compromise the very existence of the vast network of ecosystems that comprise the earth. Initially my attention to the issue of climate was directed there, to some extent at least, by Al Gore. Still, I have thought long and hard about the issue independently of what Al Gore was saying when first I reflected on the matter: When I finally got around to see his much - and justly - heralded movie I really found little in it that I didn't already know.
My political support for Al Gore notwithstanding there is one fundamental focus that I have that is very different than his: I emphatically and consistently and openly support the use of nuclear energy, not only its current use, and its future use, but also its rapid expansion. I believe that without the rapid expansion of our nuclear energy infrastructure, our planet may well perish. As a long term political liberal and Democrat, I am well aware that there is a wing of my party that abhors this element of my philosophy, but I must also say that to the extent this wing exists, it is irrational and it is wrong not only on technical and environmental grounds, but on moral grounds as well. I can of course, debate the particulars of the contentions I make, but that is not my immediate point.
I have been writing in the Democratic political blogosphere for some time - not necessarily at DKos where I am relatively new - and as a result I am routinely familiar with the arguments of people who think that nuclear energy, and not fossil fuel energy, is the type of energy that must be banned "before it is too late." Again, I regard the majority, maybe even all of these arguments as consisting of bad thinking, but for now, in the context of Al Gore, I would like to examine just one of them, the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. The nature of this fallacy is the argument that person A supports B and that person A is an authority and therefore B is true. It is the type of fallacy that underlies the famous commercial that begins, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV..."
I am sometimes informed that if I am a real supporter of Al Gore, I should oppose nuclear power because "Al Gore made a speech against nuclear power." When telling me this, nuclear power opponents refer to Mr. Gore's recent speech at NYU. Now, again, this argument is a logical fallacy. I can still admire and support Mr. Gore while believing that he is wrong about some things. Looking at the inverse, it does not follow that if Mr. Gore opposes nuclear power, it is therefore true that expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
But does Mr. Gore in fact, oppose nuclear power? Did he "make a speech opposing nuclear power?"
Let's just read what he said:
Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size — extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand — and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role.
When they inform me that this speech proves that Al Gore opposes nuclear power, the opponents are focusing on the phrase " I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity." Of course they deliberately ignore the opening dependent clause "While I am not opposed to nuclear power." Further they are construing the words "doubt that they will" to mean "I don't want them to."
On the other side of the coin, Mr. Gore trots out all of the familiar anti-nuclear arguments, the issue of so called "nuclear waste," the issue of "nuclear terrorism" and the issue of nuclear accidents. Then he makes a statement that I have seldom, if ever, heard from a nuclear energy opponent.
He says: "Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved."
Say what? It is universally assumed by nuclear opponents that these problems can never be solved, although - truth be known - these problems are trivial when compared to the problems associated with fossil fuels. Here though is Al Gore assuming they can be solved.
Next, before turning to coal, which he admits is the "dirtiest source of energy," he goes on to two other topics with respect to nuclear that he regards as more serious, economics and the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.
With respect to coal, he talks about sequestration. Here he and I part ways. I have written on carbon sequestration in a previous diary, where I suggested it is a pipe dream. Not a single sequestration plant on a significant scale has ever been ordered.
While the economics argument is, frankly, absurd, I would agree with Mr. Gore that the most serious risk of civilian nuclear technology is indeed connected with weapons proliferation, but to my mind, if not Mr. Gore's, even if the risk of weapons diversion exists it is hardly equivalent to saying that this risk is a greater danger than the risk of climate change. Neither does this argument prove that the risk of war is only connected to nuclear weapons. If Mr. Gore is saying that weapons proliferation is an impediment to the use of nuclear power - and I'm not sure he is - if given a chance I would tell him that he number of people killed in nuclear wars in the last 50 years is zero, while the number of people killed in oil wars using oil products like napalm is not zero.
But I certainly don't want to represent that I know Mr. Gore's internal thought process, any more than historians can really discern Mr. Lincoln's thought processes, even though we know full well what Mr. Lincoln did in the White House. Mr. Gore may be opposed to nuclear power's use to fight climate change, even if he once made a speech at Chernobyl that indicated otherwise, and even if he personally negotiated a treaty to fuel nuclear reactors with surplus weapons plutonium and U-235. But I think the matter of how he feels is far more ambiguously stated than nuclear opponents would like to suggest.
Let me turn again to Mr. Lincoln:
It is interesting to note that the speech that made Mr. Lincoln President of the United States is probably the speech at Cooper Union in New York City he made very near where Mr. Gore spoke. Lincoln's speech can be read here. Mr. Lincoln's speech was a powerful piece of critical thinking and discernment and brought the quality of his mind before Easterners who may not have understood that he was far more than a country bumpkin, that he was, in fact invested with one of the finest analytical minds in the history of this country. Mr. Lincoln demolished the proslavery arguments that were prevalent in his day, but if one were to take his remarks out of context, one could also note that he said something that would have - and did - discourage abolitionists in his day. Indeed one of the greatest abolitionist and human rights thinkers of the time, Frederick Douglass, was only able to manage very lukewarm for Mr. Lincoln's candidacy. Douglass, who had actually been a slave, could scarcely stomach this remark of Mr. Lincoln's near the end of his speech:
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation
I very much doubt that Mr. Douglass felt that "we can yet afford to let it (slavery) alone where it is," and of course, Mr. Douglass - and not Mr. Lincoln - was right.
I am not privy to Mr. Gore's private thinking on nuclear power. I am not trying to claim he supports a position like mine or very different than mine, but no matter what he thinks, my position is the same. My support for him and my hope that he will again run for the Presidency - not that I either know or expect he will - is predicated on the fact that he has made climate change an issue. Should he be seated in the office to which he has already been once elected, his success or failure will depend on a great many factors. I cannot say or hope that he will succeed in the struggle against climate change, but I do know that - much as Mr. Lincoln could not hope to permanently hope to save the union without ultimately abolishing slavery, Mr. Gore cannot hope to address the issue of climate change without expanding - greatly - the use of nuclear energy.