News & Events
Environmentalists (Extended)
“My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. … I think that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
As quoted in “A Renegade Against Greenpeace” regarding the green movement
Newsweek
April 12, 2008
“At a time when energy and climate change issues are inextricably linked, nuclear energy is a clean source of electricity that must be part of our planning for the future. … No matter who you vote for this primary season, keep nuclear power in the political conversation. It’s too important not to.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
“The Smart Vote in 2008 Is for Nuclear Energy”
The Hill
Jan. 30, 2008
“I think a lot of people are kind of stuck in the '70s. … I think people haven't caught up with the fact that climate change has changed the whole climate of the environmental debate on this planet. The one technology that is contributing most to reducing greenhouse gases in America today is nuclear energy, and we could do a tremendous amount to increase that.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Nov. 9, 2007
“We have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year emotional debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
BusinessWeek op-ed
Sept. 17, 2007
“The next time you flick the light switch, charge your cell phone or adjust the thermostat, stop and think about how the electricity you are using is produced. We're going to need more of it. By building more nuclear power plants, we can generate it in a clean, safe and efficient way.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Francisco Chronicle op-ed
Sept. 12, 2007
“A more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy—environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Kiplinger’s Business Resource Center
September 2007
“Nuclear is without question a great solution to powering Florida without creating greenhouse gas emissions.”
—Michael Sole
Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
As quoted by the Tallahassee Democrat
July 17, 2007
“I think it’s somewhat disingenuous that folks who agree that global warming is such a serious issue could sort of dismiss [nuclear energy] out of hand. It’s got to be at least considered.”
—Bill Chameides
Chief scientist
Environmental Defense
As quoted by the Associated Press
July 2, 2007
“The use of nuclear power in the United States today prevents the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to that of 136 million cars–which is the total of all passenger cars on the road today. In other words, without those nuclear plants, annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States would increase in an amount equal to that given off by every single car on the road.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Air & Waste Management Association 100th Annual Conference
June 28, 2007
“When we look at how our nation plans to address the dual challenge of keeping the lights on and having clean air, we cannot afford to overlook nuclear energy.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Tampa Tribune op-ed
May 30, 2007
“It’s very clear to me that ... in today’s environment of concern for climate change and concern for clean air ... nuclear energy satisfies both those concerns. It is both clean from the point of view of air pollution and ... from a climate change point of view.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
E&ETV, “OnPoint”
April 23, 2007
“There’s no question that [nuclear energy] is a clean way to generate huge amounts of electricity. There are no emissions, no pollution, and I think it is a very positive development.”
—Max Schulz
Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
CNBC’s “Power Lunch”
April 11, 2007
“If [Senator John] Edwards is serious about addressing climate change, then I would urge him to support the benefits a renewed focus on nuclear energy will bring to the United States and the world.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
The Des Moines Register
“Nuclear Power Key Piece of Puzzle”
April 8, 2007
“You can't just write nuclear off. I think everybody feels you have to at least look again.”
—Judy Greenwald
Director, Innovative Solutions
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
USA Today
March 23, 2007
“Global warming is the environmental issue of our generation. Clearly, to solve this problem we need to have all technologies on the table. Therefore, nuclear energy ... needs to be considered.”
—Bill Chameides
Chief scientist
Environmental Defense
USA Today
March 22, 2007
“There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.”
—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
As quoted in The New York Times
Feb. 27, 2007
“My views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be an energy source that can help save our planet from another potential disaster: the serious negative impacts of climate change.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Jose Mercury News op-ed
Feb. 25, 2007
“Air quality and climate change have long been critical issues for me. That being the case, any honest look at those issues tells you that nuclear has to be part of the future. People need to hear that nuclear plants emit no air pollutants or greenhouse gases.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Feb. 20, 2007
“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.”
—James Lovelock
Author
“The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”
July 2006
“[N]uclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. … Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [CO2 ] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. … [O]n the question of a sustainable energy future … the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. … Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. … Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
“Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case”
The Washington Post
April 16, 2006
“Nuclear power’s ability to contribute significantly to a low-carbon future over the next 50 years depends on the ability of the nuclear industry to start expanding nuclear generating capacity in the next 10 to 15 years, as well as the resolution of cost, safety and waste storage issues.”
—Agenda for Climate Change
Pew Center on Climate Change
February 2006
“Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all … global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and on civilization will be a universal permanent disaster. … So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. … The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power. … It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. … Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy,’ combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”
—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
“Environmental Heresies”
Technology Review (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
May 2005
“I have been a committed environmentalist for many years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.”
—Rev. Hugh Montefiore
Former Bishop of Birmingham (U.K.) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth
“Why the Planet Needs Nuclear Energy”
The Tablet (U.K.)
Oct. 23, 2004
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
As quoted in “A Renegade Against Greenpeace” regarding the green movement
Newsweek
April 12, 2008
“At a time when energy and climate change issues are inextricably linked, nuclear energy is a clean source of electricity that must be part of our planning for the future. … No matter who you vote for this primary season, keep nuclear power in the political conversation. It’s too important not to.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
“The Smart Vote in 2008 Is for Nuclear Energy”
The Hill
Jan. 30, 2008
“I think a lot of people are kind of stuck in the '70s. … I think people haven't caught up with the fact that climate change has changed the whole climate of the environmental debate on this planet. The one technology that is contributing most to reducing greenhouse gases in America today is nuclear energy, and we could do a tremendous amount to increase that.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Nov. 9, 2007
“We have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year emotional debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
BusinessWeek op-ed
Sept. 17, 2007
“The next time you flick the light switch, charge your cell phone or adjust the thermostat, stop and think about how the electricity you are using is produced. We're going to need more of it. By building more nuclear power plants, we can generate it in a clean, safe and efficient way.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Francisco Chronicle op-ed
Sept. 12, 2007
“A more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy—environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Kiplinger’s Business Resource Center
September 2007
“Nuclear is without question a great solution to powering Florida without creating greenhouse gas emissions.”
—Michael Sole
Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
As quoted by the Tallahassee Democrat
July 17, 2007
“I think it’s somewhat disingenuous that folks who agree that global warming is such a serious issue could sort of dismiss [nuclear energy] out of hand. It’s got to be at least considered.”
—Bill Chameides
Chief scientist
Environmental Defense
As quoted by the Associated Press
July 2, 2007
“The use of nuclear power in the United States today prevents the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to that of 136 million cars–which is the total of all passenger cars on the road today. In other words, without those nuclear plants, annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States would increase in an amount equal to that given off by every single car on the road.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Air & Waste Management Association 100th Annual Conference
June 28, 2007
“When we look at how our nation plans to address the dual challenge of keeping the lights on and having clean air, we cannot afford to overlook nuclear energy.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Tampa Tribune op-ed
May 30, 2007
“It’s very clear to me that ... in today’s environment of concern for climate change and concern for clean air ... nuclear energy satisfies both those concerns. It is both clean from the point of view of air pollution and ... from a climate change point of view.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
E&ETV, “OnPoint”
April 23, 2007
“There’s no question that [nuclear energy] is a clean way to generate huge amounts of electricity. There are no emissions, no pollution, and I think it is a very positive development.”
—Max Schulz
Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
CNBC’s “Power Lunch”
April 11, 2007
“If [Senator John] Edwards is serious about addressing climate change, then I would urge him to support the benefits a renewed focus on nuclear energy will bring to the United States and the world.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
The Des Moines Register
“Nuclear Power Key Piece of Puzzle”
April 8, 2007
“You can't just write nuclear off. I think everybody feels you have to at least look again.”
—Judy Greenwald
Director, Innovative Solutions
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
USA Today
March 23, 2007
“Global warming is the environmental issue of our generation. Clearly, to solve this problem we need to have all technologies on the table. Therefore, nuclear energy ... needs to be considered.”
—Bill Chameides
Chief scientist
Environmental Defense
USA Today
March 22, 2007
“There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.”
—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
As quoted in The New York Times
Feb. 27, 2007
“My views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be an energy source that can help save our planet from another potential disaster: the serious negative impacts of climate change.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Jose Mercury News op-ed
Feb. 25, 2007
“Air quality and climate change have long been critical issues for me. That being the case, any honest look at those issues tells you that nuclear has to be part of the future. People need to hear that nuclear plants emit no air pollutants or greenhouse gases.”
—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Feb. 20, 2007
“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.”
—James Lovelock
Author
“The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”
July 2006
“[N]uclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. … Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [CO2 ] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. … [O]n the question of a sustainable energy future … the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. … Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. … Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.”
—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
“Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case”
The Washington Post
April 16, 2006
“Nuclear power’s ability to contribute significantly to a low-carbon future over the next 50 years depends on the ability of the nuclear industry to start expanding nuclear generating capacity in the next 10 to 15 years, as well as the resolution of cost, safety and waste storage issues.”
—Agenda for Climate Change
Pew Center on Climate Change
February 2006
“Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all … global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and on civilization will be a universal permanent disaster. … So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. … The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power. … It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. … Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy,’ combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”
—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
“Environmental Heresies”
Technology Review (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
May 2005
“I have been a committed environmentalist for many years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.”
—Rev. Hugh Montefiore
Former Bishop of Birmingham (U.K.) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth
“Why the Planet Needs Nuclear Energy”
The Tablet (U.K.)
Oct. 23, 2004
Viewpoints on Nuclear Energy
What Others Are Saying
Key Issue: Protecting the Environment
Nuclear energy is America's largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity, producing no greenhouse gases or air pollutants. The industry's commitment to the environment extends to protecting wildlife and their habitats.