Mother Jones' Energy Issue: The Nuclear Option, Fossil Fools, Poop Power and More
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 04.21.08
The blaring headline on the front cover of the May/June issue really says it all: "It's behind the war, the recession, the ice caps: if we don't confront our energy crisis, we're screwed." As far as "green" issues of major/independent news publications go - and we've certainly seen our fair share over the last few months (Vanity Fair, Time, NYT and The New Republic to name a few) - MoJo's effort stands out as one of the best.
Featuring a virtual cavalcade of insightful, thoroughly researched stories by the likes of Chris Mooney and Bill McKibben, the magazine takes on everything from the coal industry and clean energy myths to Congress' top 10 fossil "fools." Its large feature article on nuclear energy, appropriately entitled "The Nuclear Option," takes a balanced view, addressing both the technology's major shortfalls (waste disposal, environmental impact, costs, etc) and potential benefits (no soot, carbon emissions).
Indeed, we expect Judith Lewis' incisive piece will raise all sorts of hackles - both among ardent anti-nuclear activists and cautious/enthusiastic supporters - and is, on its own merits, well worth the price of admission. Just in time for Earth Day!
The hype-busting "Bright Green Ideas" feature also provides a helpful breakdown/debunking of some of the promising (and not so promising) technologies making the rounds - worth it alone for its take on cow poop.
Paul Roberts, author of the prescient "The End of Oil," dispenses a list of the 7 myths of energy independence: starring the ethanol "miracle," the conservation-as-a-personal-virtue lie (thanks Dick!) and the only-technology-can-save-us fallacy.
It's too bad all of the issue's juicier pieces aren't yet available (they'll be coming soon though) - the hilarious/distressing "Top 10 Congress Fossil Fools" for one - however, considering it should be appearing at your local newsstands now, is well worth the trek.
All images courtesy of Mother Jones
Via ::Mother Jones: Our Energy Crisis (magazine)
See also: ::How Fair Is Reporting On China's Environment?, ::The End of More and Better: Mother Jones, March-April
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
I had the opportunity to check this out, it's actually very refreshing among the "green overkill" we've got going on right now among magazine publishers.
We just posted a story by one of our fellows about Tortillanomics in Mexico that may of interest to those following the food/fuel debate.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/mexico_2008/
Hope the piece contributes to the debate. You can post your comments by clicking on "share your reaction".
""The Nuclear Option," takes a balanced view, addressing both the technology's major shortfalls (waste disposal, environmental impact, costs, etc) and potential benefits (no soot, carbon emissions)."
Thats not balanced at all. Waste can be reprocessed, there is no environmental impact except for the steam(not really an impact) and costs go down as more will be built/operating cost goes down soon after being built.
and "ect"? Seriously, what other shortfalls? 3+ downfalls(that I just debunked) and only 2 pluses? Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. Someone needs to do a pro-nuclear article.
Let me explain something.
Deserts are full of energy.
What they lack is water.
Atomic power does not solve that.
The desert is blooming; just with golf courses and not with farms.