Gary Young, retired engineering manager: It is lamented that far too few of the electorate have any real understanding of the hard sciences. This lack of understanding has given rise to embracing poor (junk) science at even some of the highest levels of academic and political thought. The current concept of most concern is all the political rhetoric about renewables such as solar and wind providing our energy. There is only one well understood technology at the present time that could produce vast amounts of power in addition to fossil fuels and that is nuclear. We are held back from the nuclear solution by unfounded fear. The root of the fear is the very wrong doctrine of “liner no threshold” concerning the biological effects of radiation. In truth, there are thresholds and almost nothing in science is linear.
Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance: Opponents of fossil fuel-fired electricity generation play the role of those who would demand banning aspirin. They’re focusing on its comparatively minor risks and ignoring both its tremendous benefits and the ready ways to minimize its risks.
World Nuclear News: According to the International Energy Agency, IEA, some 6.5 million deaths annually are linked to outdoor and indoor air pollution, "with the number set to increase significantly in coming decades unless the energy sector takes greater action to curb emissions." "Energy production and use - mostly from unregulated, poorly regulated or inefficient fuel combustion - are the most important man-made sources of key air pollutant emissions: 85% of particulate matter and almost all of the sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides." NOTE: This far exceeds realistic projections of deaths from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on Earth. "The more the better." Emeritus Professor William Happer, Princeton U. Physics.
Euan Mearns, geologist: It is important to recall that well over $1,700,000,000,000 ($1.7 trillion) has been spent on installing wind and solar devices in recent years with the sole objective of reducing global CO2 emissions. It transpires that since 1995 low carbon energy sources (nuclear, hydro and other renewables) share of global energy consumption has not changed at all. New renewables have not even replaced lost nuclear generating capacity since 1999. ZERO CO2 has been abated and the world has done zilch to prepare itself for the expected declines (escalating costs) of fossil fuels in the decades ahead. If this is not total policy failure, what is?