New York Times Explains German Nuclear Irrationality

by Peter Hart
FAIR, June 3, 2011

The New York Times’ Alan Cowell had a piece (6/2/11) about public opposition to nuclear power in Germany, and the fact that the country’s political leadership has decided to establish policies that conform to that sentiment. It apparently left the Times a bit perplexed:

But the German move also raised a question whose answer seemed elusive: What is there in this land of 82 million people that has, over decades, bred an aversion to nuclear energy that seems unrivaled among its economic peers, defying its reputation for reasoned debate?

Cowell reveals that Germans overwhelmingly oppose nuclear power, especially after the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Anti-nuclear feelings surfaced much earlier, though:

There is little doubt that Germany’s modern history has combined to produce a deep strain of risk aversion, of caution, and a dislike for surprises, all of which magnify the potential hazards of nuclear energy, producing a perception that is different from that of other major European economies like France or Britain.

Risk aversion and caution produces a “perception” that is different than in other places. I am not even sure what that means, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable.

The Times wasn’t the only outlet slamming Germany’s anti-nukes move. The Washington Post editorial page was unimpressed with Germany’s turn toward renewables–a bad idea, “since sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” Read Miranda Spencer’s recent Extra! article for a good corrective on that.

The Post added:

Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table. Panicked overreaction isn’t the right response to the partial meltdowns in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex

The lesson of Fukushima, then, should be that the world really needs nuclear power. Apparently that kind of logic is what the Post means by a more “reasoned debate”?

Source: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *