nz herald op-ed on nuclear power

here.

After waxing about how wonderful nuclear power is (and there are real pros to nuclear power, i'm a huge advocate for large scale deployment worldwide) ,you have to get to the last paragraph before you finally read:

It may well be that nuclear power is not viable here on practical or political grounds...

ummm, yes that would be an accurate statement.

and even then, it finishes with the bizarre:

When the biosphere collapses, it won't spare this country just because we remained philosophically pure.

ummm, WTF?! perhaps when your knowledge of climate change comes from watching movies like The Day After Tomorrow you'd think this was a reasonable sentence. For the rest of us, the biosphere will be just fine - it just might not include as many homo sapiens. That's not to say it's a good thing, it's just that when discussing something as complex as energy policy and climate change, you should use words that are precise and meaningful, not emotionally laden wails of doom.

I'm not entirely sure the writer of this editorial even understands the problem. In the immortal words of Fermi, it's not even wrong.