U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned
While the full article is gated at WSJ, John Cochrane and David Henderson write about the lack of quantifying economic costs when it comes to addressing climate change. Their last paragraph:<p><i>Climate policy advocates’ apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable. It follows that the costs of genetically modified foods and modern pesticides, which can feed us with less land and lower carbon emissions, might be bearable. It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable. And it follows that symbolic, ineffective, political grab-bag policies should be intolerable.</i><p>Here&#x27;s Cochrane&#x27;s write up about the op-ed: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;johnhcochrane.blogspot.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;07&#x2F;on-climate-change.html?spref=tw" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;johnhcochrane.blogspot.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;07&#x2F;on-climate-change....</a>