Why Stewart Brand is wrong on nukes—and is losing

By Harvey Wasserman
Senior Editor
The Free Press
July 25, 2010

(this is a segment from the middle of the article)

Stewart Brand now seems to equate “science” with a tragic and dangerous corporate agenda. The technologies for which he argues – nuclear power, “clean” coal, genetically modified crops, etc. – can be very profitable for big corporations, but carry huge risks for the rest of us. In too many instances, tangible damage has already been done, and more is clearly threatened.

If there is a warning light for what Stewart advocates, it is the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which much of the oil industry said (like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) was “impossible.” Then it happened. The $75 million liability limit protecting BP should be ample warning that any technology with a legal liability limit (like nuclear power) cannot be tolerated.

Thankfully, there is good news: We have true green alternatives to these failed 20th-century ideas. TheyÂ’re cheaper, safer, cleaner, more reliable and more job-producing than the old ways Stewart advocates.

Read the whole article here.

Note from Alicia:  I post this with some sadness.  In early spring 1970, I brought Living on the Earth to Stewart Brand at the Whole Earth Catalog, when it was an unfinished manuscript with illustrations. Stewart directed me to Whole Earth Catalog’s distributor Book People to help me find a publisher for it, and offered to review it in the Catalog once it was published.  This one act of kindness changed my entire life as an artist.  I am astonished that his clear voice for the preservation of the Earth has come to carry the messages for the nuclear power, coal and biotech industries.