a greener France

The president of France, with Al Gore and José Manuel Barroso in attendance, laid out his vision for an Eco-France on Thursday. The proposals are fairly radical, though whether they will survive the political process is a very valid question. Some of the highlights included:

• By 2010, all incandescent light bulbs would be banned
• Older models of televisions and other electrical equipment considered to consume too much energy will be banned
• Drivers who buy efficient cars will be entitled to discounts
• Road construction will be drastically slowed while high-speed train service will be extended with another 1,200 miles of new tracks
• River traffic will be expanded
• and, one more thing, lots of new nuclear power stations

On the NPR version of the story there was a wonderful moment when Al Gore called for a Grenelle mondial, which was the only French I heard out of him. You can read more at Le Monde.

The most disturbing part of that is the nuclear power. Why? Well...b/c France is moving ahead but really hasn't figured out what they're going to do with the nuclear waste that is produced. Essentially, they're going to figure it out later and hope that there's a solution by the time they need it.

Yes, there is a huge problem in relation to the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. However, nuclear fission is a method which allows the production of electricity cheaply and with minimal emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy is perhaps the most potent solution to global warming and the dwindling reserves of oil. Do these obvious advantage not gain precedence over the disposal problem associated with nuclear waste? Adrian At the moment, there seems to be a lot of inactivity in relation to global warming, as we are all looking for a solution with out any disadvantages. Perhaps, this does not exist.

It's true that nuclear power lives in a weird no-man's land of either being green, or being the worst technology on the planet. Unfortunately there's a lot of FUD-spreading on both sides. In some respects this alone makes the question of nuclear power problematic. Is a catastrophic meltdown more or less dangerous than decades of particulates and greenhouse gases? Any analysis will be flawed by the bias of the analyst. On some level I almost like nuclear power more because people are so afraid of it - making for more effective watchdogs.