“Renewable energy could ‘rape’ nature”

No, really? So says Jesse Ausubel, a conservation biologist and climate researcher, in the latest International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. Sadly, the full text is only available to subscribers, but New Scientist cites the piece:

Renewables are “boutique fuels” says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. “They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible.”

Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. “If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power.”

Most of us share a desire for a low-pollution world. I think it would be both pleasant and productive. Environmentalists believe it will reduce, reverse, correct or otherwise change the climate and placate Gaia. If we’re only prepared to use the crude tools of mandated limits on energy use or enforcing inefficient alternatives, instead of relying on technological progress and human innovation, achieving this desire will come at a tremendous cost, both to the environment and to human quality of life. It’s nice to see a climate scientist and conservationist agree.

But wait. Ausubel is “setting himself up as a demagogue with this heretical stuff”, says John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Should have guessed.