ANS Will Enter the Climate Change Dialogue

By Donald R. Hoffman, ANS President

Hoffman

Hoffman

In August, the American Nuclear Society conducted a simple 4-question poll on climate change policy. I commissioned this short poll to establish a baseline understanding of our members’ views on the general issue and possible policy actions that ANS should consider. The results are in and it is clear that members are ready for ANS to participate in this important policy discussion.

Taking the pulse of the membership

The public policy dialogue about the future of nuclear energy has become closely connected to the issue of climate change. In the past, ANS has not engaged in this debate for a variety of reasons. However, ANS’s silence on the issue has limited our influence in discussing nuclear energy’s role in these policy discussions. Although I found this limitation frustrating, it was important to take the pulse of the ANS membership on this issue before taking any action.

Approach to the poll

In consultation with ANS’s Public Policy Committee chair and others, I decided on a simple poll, rather than an in-depth survey, because we simply wanted to capture a snapshot opinion. We did not want to rely on anecdotal conversations, and I wanted to ensure that every ANS member had the opportunity to be heard on the issue. Given the number of respondents, this is obviously a topic of interest to our members.

The poll was conducted online. Members received an email from me that included a link that allowed each member to submit their responses only once. A reminder was included in the August issue of ANS Notes & Deadlines and an email reminder from me was sent to encourage participation.

Some members questioned the need to address this issue, or if a substantial change was needed to the 2006 ANS Position Statement #44—Nuclear Power: The Leading Strategy for Reducing Carbon Emissions. Others raised concerns that ANS should refrain from engaging in what has generally become a polarizing political issue.

While it is often hard to find any topic in Washington that is not polarizing, the facts are that government agencies, the U.S. military, investment firms, and insurance companies are making infrastructure, economic, and actuarial decisions based on their own analyses of climate change impacts. Other nations are making similar efforts to assess their economic and national security programs in consideration of climate uncertainties.

ANS Position Paper #44 advocates the use of nuclear power as a means of reducing carbon emissions and these recommendations remain valid, but the subject has expanded and evolved from acting to reduce carbon emissions to adjusting our national economy.

Results of the poll

The poll yielded 2,530 responses, which represents 20 percent of the ANS membership. I believe the results are clear.

A majority (87 percent) of ANS members believe that the climate has changed over the past 50 years, and most (68 percent) believe that this change is caused by human interaction. Two thirds (67 percent) of ANS members believe that enacting policies to address the issue is warranted.

Opinions on specific policies to pursue are varied, but the vast majority (82 percent) don’t believe that we should wait for international mandates, with nearly the same number (79 percent) saying that we must do something.

And so ANS shall.

What’s next?

After the poll closed, the Public Policy Committee convened via conference call to discuss the results and next steps. The committee will be creating a talking paper and updating Position Statement #44 in short order. This will allow ANS to enter this policy discussion during the current legislative session. I and others believe that it is important for ANS to join this dialogue now, while the debates in Washington concerning future policy direction are ongoing, rather than wait to comment on entrenched positions.

ANS will continue to monitor the environment in which this dialogue is taking place. This includes an inventory of other scientific societies’ positions in climate change policy. Interestingly, the leading international body on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will release its latest major assessment report in phases over the coming months, with the Physical Science Basis due out at the end of September. All of this information will guide our participation in this ongoing and critical discussion.

ANS Members: Poll Results on Climate Change Policy

_______________________

16 Responses to ANS Will Enter the Climate Change Dialogue

  1. Joris van Dorp

    Nice.

    I agree with the majority of ANS members. Without the climate disruption issue, the need to use nuclear power is not nearly as great as when climate disruption is recognized. If CO2 was not a problem, the use of nuclear power could be delayed many decades or hundreds of years, simply by continuing reliance on coal and gas. Without the climate disruption issue, nuclear power could therefore well remain on the back burner for many generations to come, perhaps risking the loss of this technology to humanity altogether. Of course, the science of climate disruption and co2 emissions is settled, so the need for rapid decarbonisation is now clear to all (or it should be!)
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

    Many nations are moving to energy economies that include growing amounts of solar and wind power. But it can be shown (and has been shown) quite readily that this is not the way to quickly and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a large enough extent. Ultimately, the electric grid simply cannot even handle the very large penetrations of intermittent generators that would be necessary. This will manifest as a failure of nations to decarbonise their energy systems beyond rather small fractions of between 10% and 50%. This is clearly not enough to meaningfully address climate change. To address climate change, at least 90% of the energy system must be decarbonised, as quickly as possible. Only nuclear power can do that cost-effectively, quite apart from the other advantages of using nuclear energy.

    Worse: when nations eventually encounter the inherent limitations of using growing penetrations of intermittent energy sources, their electricity grids will have become so unstable that the economics of retroactively adding new nuclear power plants will be that much more prohibitative. In a sense, countries who are seeking to maximise the contribution of intermittent energy sources are inadvertently locking themselves into a future of sustained coal and gas burning (since biomass cannot scale sufficiently), unless nuclear power plants can be developed that can compete with coal and gas even at low capacity factors (for example: less than 30%).

    This can be done, I think, but optimization of regulatory and political process for nuclear power development will be necessary to unlock the capability of nuclear power to provide such very cheap power, that can sufficiently undercut gas (and coal) power. A regulatory system that fully recognizes and rewards passive and inherent safety features is the first priority, IMHO. another priority is to improve the public education on nuclear power. The public must have enough understanding of the technology to form a reasonably informed opinion about it. This is currently not the case. Pro-nuclear advocacy has to come out far more effectively and conspicuously. There are ample ways and methods that can be employed. On the internet there are various good pro-nuke advocacy websites, but “In Real Life” much more has to happen. When do we start?

    Best regards,

    Joris

  2. James Greenidge

    Everything Joris said.

    I also find it peculiar/(suspicious?) how fast the shrill media warnings over climate change dropped off after Fukushima, as though the resultant nuclear-phobia from it as closing and canceling plants helped eliminate a deep barb in the side of Greens and media who so lowered an environmental alarm which favored nukes.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  3. Well, ten years too late, but better late than never….

    The first thing I would focus on, were I you, is the state Renewable Energy Mandates. They all contain a clause requiring utilities to purchase all of the renewable energy which is produced. As renewable generation reaches 10% – 15% of energy demand, it’s name-plate capacity reaches 40% – 60% of power demand, because of the poor average capacity factor.

    When renewable generation reaches ~50% it will hit that number with some frequency for short periods of time. If the grid is required to accept that power, then other, reliable, producers are required to shut down.

    You can see how this is the death of reliable base-load generation.

    You must immediately begin efforts to change this portion of the RE Mandates at the states level, if you wish to preserve and expand nuclear electricity generation in the USA.

    The other things you mention are also very important, but you face an immediate threat at the state level, which has already killed Kewaunee and Vermont Yankee and is poised to kill any hope of nuclear expansion and possibly existing nuclear plants in Texas as well.

    Good luck. We’re all relying on you for our future welfare in so many different ways.

  4. Need an edit function. That third paragraph should read:

    When renewable generation *nameplate capacity* reaches ~50% of power demand it will hit that number with some frequency for short periods of time. If the grid is required to accept that power, then other, reliable, producers are required to shut down. So while only supplying 10% – 15% of total energy demand, renewable sources with legislative mandates can drive affordable, reliable base-load generators off the grid.

  5. When I discuss this issue with people, I do note that the science is always wrapped in a framework of politics. Yet from a purely scientific point of view, I always try to point out 3 things.
    1. CO2 has been known to be a warming gas since before my grandfather was born. Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s had some interesting observations on the subject. {see: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm}
    2. CO2 has trended between about 280 ppm and 220 ppm for the past 500 millenia, but since 1850, with the advent of fossil fuels is now near 400 ppm, so in essence we are engaged in a great experiment to see what happens when CO2 PRECEEDS a warming cycle.
    3. Increasing CO2 DOES NOT replace natural climate change, BUT one can argue it puts a positive bias on that change. Given the near unanimity within the climate science community that most of the warming since 1850 is from changes in CO2, one must consider whether or not it is warranted to at least hedge our bets that warming is occurring, and will occur, and we should leave the “how much? how fast?” arguments for another day.
    I do very much disagree with those who say all of this topic is simply an amalgam of radical political agendas and shrill media stories. If one looks, there is way too much actual science behind this issue.

  6. “Never argue with a fool: People might not know the difference”

    “When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas”

    The philosophical concept that, to justify the continued use of nuclear power, we scientists and engineers have to go along with the frenzy of global warming (or, now, after some cold winters, “climate change”), is disturbing to me.

    We will somehow, eventually rue the day that we join an irrational “debate” hoping to make a rational point to a different question. When, somehow, somewhere, it is recognized that the emperor has no clothes, those who participated in the folly will look pretty silly and stupid and will be seen to have done irreparable harm to their reputations.

    Whom am I to get in the way of the 13% of ANS members (two-thirds of 20% of members who responded) who “believe that enacting policies to address the issue is warranted”?

    But they will not do it with my money.

    I will not be renewing my ANS membership.

  7. Fossil fuel companies that lobby Congress likely know that solar and wind are not a threat to their virtual monopoly of baseload power generation. I suspect the fossil fuel companies lobby hard against nuclear power because they know that it is a real threat to their monopoly. Can the ANS sway green anti-nukes to get enlightened because their current position puts them in cahoots with fossil fuel companies? Does the ANS have federal and state lobbyists working on its behalf? Can the ANS run ads that promote nuclear and educate the public? Can the designers and builders of reactors, like Westinghouse, contribute to a pro-nuke campaign?

  8. Mauro Missaglia

    To Ken Naugle,

    I think that you hint very well and in a synthetic way at the scientific evidence behind the necessity to act on the issue of carbon and other greenhouse gases emissions, in order to avoid possible (shall I say very probable?) future catastrophic effects on the world climate, hence on the world population and economy. I think that the link that you included in your post is excellent reading on the issue of global warming.

    Refusing to act right now when faced with such scientific evidence, on the basis of a business as usual approach or, worse, because of entrenched interests, would represent an irresponsible and unjustifiably short sighted attitude towards future generations.

    Of course, action to limit the possibly catastrophic effects of greenhouse gases emissions – - which, by the way, are often if not always coupled with the emissions of pollutants that have other major negative impacts on the ecosystem and on human health – - must include a wider reliance on nuclear as a source of baseload electricity generation.

    And, of course, this is where ANS action will be strongly welcomed.

    To Joe Lazzaro,

    You are entitled with your own opinion, be it a clearly anti-scientific one (unless you are right in your beliefs, against the stance of the overwhelming majority of the worldwide scientific community involved in the issues of greenhouse gases emissions and of climate change).

    I would only remark that ANS is a technical and scientific society. Therefore, I find it both coherent with your own opinion and a benefit for the credibility and authority of the ANS that you decided not to renew your membership.

    Best regards,
    Mauro Missaglia
    Viroflay, France

  9. James Greenidge

    Nobel effort but the horse left the barn ages ago. What’s flapping gums over the issue to a captive audience going to solve? Doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or not; what matters is most Greens (thus pols) believe it. If you want nukes to be positively viewed and hailed as climate-change defusers, start publicly hammering on the tacit fossil-preference hypocrisy of major Green groups. Maybe some members will see the enlightenment.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  10. Only 87% believe climate has changed! Where have the other 13 been? Climate is always changing; it always has; it always will; stasis is not an option with climate. Climate change is inevitable, uncontrollable and is largely unpredictable. If there had been no climate change the past 12,000 years, we would still be in an ice age.
    However, it appears the poll unfortunately adopted the trendy term “climate change” meaning, instead, “global warming” thus allowing all weather variations to falaciously become evidence of man-made global warming for which there is no empirical evidence and which, perhaps, has become the greatest myth of our time.
    The carbon mania gripping the Western world is absurd. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas at .04% of our atmosphere, is not a pollutant but is a wonderful fertilizer. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant only in the way that oxygen, hydrogen,and water are pollutants. We could not live without them. Virtually all life on Earth derives its carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide, either directly (from plants) or from eating other living things that eat plants.
    Furthermore, less that 4% of this .04% trace gas that we call carbon dioxide is man-made. The remaining 96% is the product of natural causes such as volcanoes, animal emissions, human breathing, dying vegetation, and respiration of soils and vegetation. Thus trying to control Earth’s temperature by controlling carbon dioxide is as futile as trying to stop a hurricane or stop a volcano.
    Finally, a strong case is seldom served well by a weak argument, in this case the embrace of programs to cut carbon dioxide emissions to reduce Earth’s temperature. Nuclear power, the single greatest technological achievement in recorded history, does not need for technical justification, distractions and delusions that are based upon the myth of man-made global warming and associated computer-generated alarmism. The Society would be wise to not embark on the fool’s errand of trying to decarbonize Earth.
    M. S. Medeiros, Jr., Kitty Hawk, NC

  11. Mauro Missaglia

    I cannot help being appalled when reading the arguments of people that are skeptical or downright scornful about the science supporting the reality of human-made climate change.

    I am no authority to contribute to the debate with specific and detailed scientific arguments, but I am sufficiently humble to accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists involved with this issue.

    The first comment by Joris van Dorp contains a link to a 2009 statement on climate change by the academies of sciences of G8+5 countries. If the official positions of the academies of sciences of the most scientifically and technologically advanced countries of the world, including the US, are not enough, what else should be added to convince skeptics of anthropogenic climate change?

    The scientific position of this vast majority of scientists does not of course mean that they are all necessarily defending their scientific stance only out of greed to get funding for their research. If this cynical point of view of many anthropogenic climate change skeptics was acceptable, then it should also be applied to any lobby of scientists, and even more so for any lobby of scientists and engineers (engineers mainly work in industry, thus would be more prone to defend positions on the basis of financial considerations above technical or ethical ones). It would therefore be applicable to the ANS, and thus we should accept that opponents to nuclear energy consider us as cynics that greedily defend our own science and industry only out of interest for the finances of our laboratories and industry.

    Enough of combating against cynical and stubborn skeptics that will never be convinced about the dangers of the dramatic man-made increase of greenhouse gases in our ecosystem.

    More seriously, Joris van Dorp has a very good point when he says that “Without the climate disruption issue, the need to use nuclear power is not nearly as great as when climate disruption is recognized. If CO2 was not a problem, the use of nuclear power could be delayed many decades or hundreds of years, simply by continuing reliance on coal and gas.”

    On the other hand, and in my view not in contrast with Joris van Dorp’s position, James Greenidge also has an excellent point when he says that “If you want nukes to be positively viewed and hailed as climate-change defusers, start publicly hammering on the tacit fossil-preference hypocrisy of major Green groups.”

    We at the ANS should be insisting on this central point: the present and foreseeable alternatives for reliable large-scale baseload electricity generation are coal, gas and nuclear (plus the old hydro, for which the potential for the addition of new generating capacity is limited and not always ecologically and human friendly), with solar, wind and other renewable-energy technologies only representing the complement. This is – at least for the foreseeable future – the scientific and technical reality, and therefore we are right at pointing to the hypocrisy of Greens opposed to nuclear, since their position is tantamount to supporting coal and gas.

    Mauro Missaglia
    Viroflay, France

  12. If this cynical point of view of many anthropogenic climate change skeptics was acceptable, then it should also be … applicable to the ANS, and thus we should accept that opponents to nuclear energy consider us as cynics that greedily defend our own science and industry only out of interest for the finances of our laboratories and industry.

    Joris van Dorp has a very good point when he says that Without the climate disruption issue, the need to use nuclear power is not nearly as great as when climate disruption is recognized. … James Greenidge also has an excellent point when he says that If you want nukes to be positively viewed and hailed as climate-change defusers, …

    Mauro – While I was reading this, I was waiting to get to the point where you explain how the ANS is not just a desperate, self-interested group that is frantically clinging onto any available opportunity to keep a dying industry afloat, but the more I read, the more you seem to reinforce and bolster the “cynical point of view.”

    If it was your purpose to explain that jumping on the “climate change” bandwagon would somehow boost the credibility of the ANS with the general public, then you have failed miserably. In fact, the majority of the comments here thus far have only served to expose and reinforce the cynical side of this strategic change in policy.

  13. Mauro Missaglia

    Brian,
    I hope that my reply does not come too late for you to read.

    There is absolutely nothing cynical about using the – very good – argument of climate change to put forward the many merits of nuclear.

    There is nothing cynical about this, for the very simple reason that, as for every other human endeavor, there is nothing cynical in itself in the nuclear industry, although there certainly is cynicism and meanness in the way some people may totally misuse nuclear energy, for example by making nuclear bombs, or by performing dangerous experiments leading to the worst nuclear accident to date, Chernobyl.

    Of course the same can be said about renewable energies, which, according to your posts that I read now and then on the ANS Nuclear Café blogs, you strongly support. But the hard fact – i.e. scientifically supported fact- is that nuclear has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of when compared to renewable energies, as far as its impact on the environment of the planet and its inhabitants is concerned.

    Sadly, the myth of the enormous dangers of everything nuclear is so rooted in the unconscious of so many, especially among greens, that it is a daunting and sometimes tiring task to dispel this myth.

    I quoted Chernobyl on purpose. What has been up to now and will be the cumulative health impact of this accident in the coming decades? No serious assessment (e.g. World Health Organization) and no pessimistic extrapolation about those assessments points to figures higher than a cumulated toll of a few tens of thousands of – probably mostly not deadly – cancers (thyroid cancers and leukemia) at the very maximum. And, I can surely tell you that very many in the nuclear industry would – and will – attack figures of the order of magnitude of tens of thousands, calling them vastly exaggerated (I shall just remind that this revolves around the long debated issue of the effect of low doses of ionizing radiations).

    Of course, two years after the Fukushima Daiichi accident it is still too early to put forward precise estimates of its health consequences. However, it is not too early to assess that these impacts will be far less than those of the Chernobyl accident (some put forward the estimate that the health impact will be around one tenth that of the Chernobyl accident), which means that they will be, in all likelihood, far less than the 20,000 victims of the earthquake and tsunami that provoked the accident.

    With all due respect to the past and future victims of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents – which of course I sincerely have, without the least fear of being called cynical or hypocritical – I simply ask: can anyone just stop reacting irrationally to this kind of figures, and calmly realize just how low they are, compared to the inherent and inevitable risks of just living on planet earth?

    Let me do just two examples.

    First example: epidemiological studies on the impact of coal generated electricity in the US alone estimate 25,000 deaths a year with present coal technologies, 10,000 deaths a year with “green” coal technologies. Let’s consider 15,000 deaths per year as a conservative average: that makes around 410,000 deaths in the US due to coal-generated electricity in the 27 and half years since the Chernobyl accident.

    Second example: in the past weeks, much has been said here in France about the impact of gasoil on human health, because of the very large fleet of diesel cars in France (something around 50% of circulating French cars), and because of indirect subsides to French car makers that mostly rely on diesel models. Ecologists claim the figure of 42,000 deaths per year in France due to the emissions of diesel engines, especially fine particulates. Even supposing that this figure is exaggerated by a factor of four and considering 10,000 deaths per year (this also accommodates for a smaller diesel-engine-powered car park in France in the past decades), that makes 270,000 deaths in France since the Chernobyl accident.

    Now, is that cynical to just remind and stress that the average life expectancy in highly developed countries such North America and Europe is around 80 years – all these kinds of negative health impacts notwithstanding – as compared to roughly 40 years in poor countries in the southern hemisphere, which, among other poverty issues, suffer from extreme energy poverty? No, I maintain that this is not cynical at all, it is just rational.

    Although there certainly are rational people among greens, it surely appears that they are a minority. Either that or they are as cynical in defending their lobby as they purport all their self-constructed enemies in the nuclear industry are. An industry that, in its vast majority, is made of simple guys like me, that care about our shared planet as much as greens care; guys that, like me, in their vast majority fully support the development of renewable energy technologies together with nuclear, without caring if they are not referred to with the glossy and fashionable adjective of green.
    Mauro Missaglia
    Viroflay, France

  14. Mauro – It all boils down to the following question: Is the impact of the message more important than the honesty in the message?

    Example: You claim that “epidemiological studies on the impact of coal generated electricity in the US alone estimate 25,000 deaths a year.” Well, I know where that claim comes from, I’ve read the report in detail, and I take this figure with a huge grain of salt. This figure is not based on many “epidemiological studies”; rather, it uses the results from only one or two epidemiological studies of health impacts in five very crowded, very dirty industrial cities, extrapolates these results to small levels of exposure, and applies the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model to the entire population of the United States using atmospheric computer models to calculate the tiny exposures to populations throughout the country.

    This same technique would result in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, or more, if applied to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Where do you think that Greenpeace gets its figures from? They don’t completely make them up; there’s a good deal of pseudo-scientific witchcraft in the message.

    If we are to reject the latter analysis, why should we naively embrace the former? Yes, there certainly are very well documented health effects from exposure to particulate matter, just as there are very well documented health effects from exposure to radiation. That doesn’t excuse exaggerating the risk of either — especially when it is convenient and advantageous to do so. As much as I dislike defending the burning of coal for electricity, honesty is more important.

  15. Mauro Missaglia

    Brian,

    I must recognize that you have a very good point, and I take your summary “It all boils down to the following question: Is the impact of the message more important than the honesty in the message?”not as a personal critic, but as a reminder of the rigorousness that is desperately needed in the debate about the present and future energy needs of the planet and the best mix of ways of coping with them in a respectful manner, both for the planet itself and for the well being of its inhabitants.

    Well, I admit that I might have not applied this rigorousness in checking the report we are both talking about, or, rather, in checking the details of the methodology applied for obtaining the general figures of coal-induced mortality that are put forward as a message. As always, the devil is in the details, thus checking the details, at least to the highest possible extent (not everybody necessarily has access to all the data and expertise needed to fact-check details of technical or scientific studies) is of paramount importance.

    So, I accept your remark about the credibility of the figures of coal-induced mortality in the US, and I acknowledge your rigorousness in rightly pointing out how – on the other side – Greenpeace arrives at their well known terrible estimates of the health impact of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, i.e. by applying the largely debatable LNT model to quantify the health impact of low doses of radioactivity.

    Now, the big issue that our exchange highlights is this one: as informed citizens, or even as citizens tout court, without adjectives, what are – if any – the sources of information that we can trust and rely on when dealing with complex technical and scientific issues such as this one, energy and the multiple impacts of its production and conservation? Since every single stakeholder, even UN organizations, has stakes in a given issue – because we, as humans, are very rarely totally exempts from bias and pre-judgments – how shall we be able to trust anyone?

    Of course, it could be broadly said that the plurality of democracy as a political framework is a good guarantee that, “on the average” so to speak, citizens are able to trust people and organizations that are in charge, and be rather confident that their interests are “more or less” well protected. However, apart from the very fact that the notion that democratic countries all over the world, none excluded, are in fact real and full democracies is largely questionable, this leaves us again with the big problem that the devil is in the details. Therefore, saying that our well being as citizens is “more or less” well protected “on the average” through a democratic political system, is far from being intellectually satisfying.

    On this issue, the perspective and expertise of historians in general, and more specifically of specialists on the history of science end technology, would add a great deal of enlightenment on how no political, economical, social and technological system has ever been able to protect and respect the well being of every single person that lived under that system. There have always been gainers and losers; there has never been a free lunch for everybody on this planet.

    Maybe the only answer is that since we, as humans, are fallible, nothing will ever be completely perfect and satisfying, and that, therefore, the only available option – even when dealing with the energy issue at large – is simply to accept the risk of living , knowing that we face not a risk but a true certainty: our being mortal and finite.

  16. Mauro – That does bring up a good question: Whom do you trust?

    Well, I’ve seen so much stuff that, under further examination, turned out to be nonsense, I really don’t trust much without verifying it myself. I think that the best policy is the one adopted by the Royal Society long ago: nullius in verba (on the word of no one). Theology relies on appropriately blessed doctrine — science does not.

    The other side of that coin, however, is that, while determining whom to trust can be difficult, deciding whom not to trust can be relatively simple. For example, it is easy for me dismiss the silly claims made by Greenpeace, the Union of “Concerned Scientists,” etc., unless I have very good evidence that they are correct, because they publish and advocate for so much that is complete rubbish. Of course, I realize that even a blind squirrel occasionally can find a nut, but it’s not something that I’m willing to bet on.

    Considering how much influence these “Green” groups have had on organizations like the NAS and the IPCC, it is very difficult for me to take their recommendations for policymakers seriously. These are my reasons for not jumping on the bandwagon — take ‘em or leave ‘em.