Interviewed by: Cotton Delo
May 15, 2007
Dr. Patrick Moore established himself as one of the godfathers of the modern environmental movement when he co-founded Greenpeace in 1971. He was in New York last week for meetings as part of his new job as head of Vancouver-based environmental consultancy, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. The Canadian scientist talked to the Resident about New York’s sustainability and his late-found belief in nuclear power.
Could you talk a bit about Greenspirit?
PM: Our group works with all different sectors to help them balance the environmental, social and economic realities around the various needs we have for food, energy and materials. In New York State, it’s very clear that you have a serious air pollution problem and a lot of fossil fuel consumption leading to greenhouse gas emissions. As we see it, the best way to address these issues is to focus on clean, non-air polluting, non-greenhouse gas emitting electricity sources, which is basically hydroelectric and nuclear energy. If you look at the situation in New York State, it’s 30 percent nuclear, 15 or 16 percent hydroelectric. The fossil fuels are by far the largest amount, with about 53 percent of the power.
Have these ideas been reflected in the plaNYC 2030 plan?
PM: We’re not clear on what Mayor Bloomberg’s plan holds for electricity because it doesn’t even mention nuclear energy, even though a quarter to a third of New York’s energy is coming from nuclear energy, primarily from the Indian Point reactor (in Westchester). I’m sure, if asked, the mayor would support the continuing operation of Indian Point, but many other New York politicians, including the governor, have taken a contrary position, suggesting that Indian Point should be shut down. Now, if that was to occur, then there really wouldn’t be any way you could reduce your greenhouse gas emissions because the question immediately comes up, well, what do we replace Indian Point with? We’ve got a logical inconsistency in the body politic here.
The plan contains an energy surcharge (in which subscribers pay a monthly fee on top of their utility bill to subsidize efficiency initiatives). In your view, that wouldn’t be helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
PM: Not unless there’s a change in the technology. The fact is that New York already has among the highest electricity rates in the country. People are still going to need the electricity. On energy, the mayor has made a number of points, and he wants to expand clean power. He talks about expansion of natural gas infrastructure. That’s the opposite of reducing greenhouse gas, because natural gas is a fossil fuel with vast amounts of carbon dioxide.
In your work, have you found that people are resistant to expanding nuclear power?
PM: No, in fact, in Ontario, a decision was made over a year ago to build new nuclear. In the United States, there are now 34 nuclear power plants on the drawing boards – most of them in the Southeast where the population is growing most rapidly – but I understand there’s talk of a new nuclear plant at Nine Mile Point in upstate New York. So, yes, there’s a great deal of public acceptance. Fully 70 percent of the American public supports nuclear energy. The fact that there is a small and extremely vociferous anti-nuclear movement makes it seem as though there’s inordinate opposition, but it’s not the case if you look at the actual polling. Even in Westchester County, where the Indian Point reactor is, there is a clear majority in favor, according to a recent poll just a few weeks ago (by Manhattanville College in Purchase).
What do you think of congestion pricing?
PM: The proof will be in the pudding. The fact is, people are already paying a huge amount on driving their own cars into the city, and it might be that you have to put a pretty high tax on them in order to get them to stop doing that.
How does New York stack up against other American and Canadian cities in terms of environmental leadership? Is what’s going on here truly daring, or is it middle-of-the-pack?
PM: No, it’s very good. It is innovative. On the other hand, accomplishing the goals will be the difficult challenge, but if you look at New York’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions, they’re quite good. London is lower, but San Francisco is far higher. To tell you the truth, I don’t see how this plan – as bold as it is – can accomplish a 30 percent reduction in the face of growing population unless some other elements are added to it, such as increasing nuclear and reducing fossil.
Have you always advocated nuclear power?
PM: No. I was the Greenpeace founder in 1971, and we were against nuclear energy. I think we made the mistake like so many people did of associating nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, as though they were all part of some holocaust. It is a fact that nuclear technology was born with the bomb, but then people learned to use that technology for peaceful purposes.
Do you think the damage we’ve done to the planet is irreversible?
PM: I personally do not think it’s irreversible. I certainly do not believe that the earth is doomed, and I think there’s too much alarmist talk, and all that does is scare people. What we really need is to come up with solutions. Those solutions are largely in changing our behavior – not driving our car so much, for example – and changing our technology.
| 
