Angela Saini skriver i New Humanist om de gröna som nyligen har blivit vänner till kärnkraften. I artikeln finner jag detta avslöjande citat:

In 2008, green activists George Monbiot and Mark Lynas both also admitted that they would be prepared to consider nuclear power, under pressure to find non-carbon solutions to the energy crisis created by climate change.

“In some ways we think religiously about this topic,” George Monbiot admitted as I [Angela Saini] filmed him for a documentary about nuclear power. “People start with a pre-existing position of being anti-nuclear and then go out and find the evidence to justify that position…” (Min kursivering.)

Artikeln går sedan igenom en massa myter om kärnkraft. Myter som miljöaktivisterna håller fast vid som religiösa dogmer. Därför är det föga överraskande att inte fler miljöaktivister ändrar uppfattning.

The green shift in the nuclear direction is, however marginal … The nuclear debate is still riddled with irrationalism, to the point where pro-nuclear environmentalists are often criticised by more mainstream greens simply for daring to suggest that nuclear power might make ecological sense. Bruno Comby [grundaren av Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy] told me that fellow activists would not force him into silence: “We’ve been attacked with vitriol. But in the end our ideas will succeed simply because we are right on a scientific level, and the truth always comes out in the end,” he said.

Miljöaktivister blundar inte bara för fakta. De våldför sig också på andra människor. De försöker tysta de som ifrågasätter deras dogmer.

Sådana miljöaktivister som Comby förstår inte miljörörelsens sanna essens. Det gör däremot George Monbiot som beskriver miljörörelsens kampanj så här: ”It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves”.

Därför tror jag, tyvärr, att Comby är naiv. Saini tycks instämma i den slutsatsen:

So how likely is it that the remainder of greens will be persuaded to join their growing list of dissenters and be swayed to the nuclear side? The signs aren’t good. Greenpeace’s opposition to anything remotely nuclear has gone so far as to slam one of the most exciting scientific endeavours of the century, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) at Cadarache in France.

Miljörörelsens kampanj mot vetenskap, teknologi och välstånd fortsätter. Därmed fortsätter deras kampanj mot människan.