On November 20, Beyond Nuclear's column, by Linda Pentz Gunter, ran in Counterpunch, questioning Hansen's contradictions as he espouses slow, expensive and dangerous nuclear energy while sounding the alarm that climate change must be addressed immediately. Read the Counterpunch column.
This was quickly followed on December 3 by a Guardian article in which Hansen and his colleagues made some eye-stretching assertions that nuclear could not only address climate change but actually save civilization! All it would take would be to open 61 reactors a year. Such departure from reality prompted a series of tweets from us, calling out this nonsense and found here.
Hansen et al.'s wild commentary also inspired a column by Solartopia's Harvey Wasserman (pictured) who speculated on whether Hansen wasn't in fact anti-nuke, such is his service to our cause in making such irrational statements.
"The case Team Hansen makes for nukes demands at least three blind eyes: one to current reactor realities (catastrophic), another to the timeline necessary to solve climate chaos (desperate), a third to what’s really happening in renewables and efficiency (spectacular)," Wasserman wrote. Read the full article here.