The meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is responsible for about 11,500 tons of radioactive water being released into the Pacific Ocean. The government says this will not pose an immediate threat to humans -- very hard to believe. However, like many aspects of nuclear power, the threat is not necessarily immediate – but does not equate to nonexistent. The actual cost of nuclear power could be quite grave.
Since the early 1990s, there has been a budding hope for a nuclear renaissance. The earth’s supply of fossil fuels is steadily being depleted, and the United States’ dependence on coal and gas has proven detrimental in many ways. Just this past year, at least 70 coal waste dumpsites were found to have contaminated water supplies with toxic metals like arsenic, lead, selenium, and cadmium. The obvious solution would be to make the switch to nuclear, right? Wrong.
The potential risks of developing nuclear power plants in the United States likely won’t hit us, but it may leave our children or grandchildren reeling.
Though nuclear power plants will reduce greenhouse emissions, it is not necessarily good for the environment. There is uncertainty about containment, decommissioning, and disposal of nuclear waste. Nuclear meltdowns result in blighted lands, barren and uninhabitable. The development of nuclear power plants also require government financial backing, and many, many years of development. The U.S. government cannot afford to go forth with this expenditure, investing in an energy source that is both costly and enigmatic.
The only responsible path for the United States to take is towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.
President Obama promised in 2008 to ensure that 10 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025 – something he has not yet made viable strides toward yet.
Proponents for nuclear power often suggest that countries that abandon the idea of nuclear power will likely go to fossil fuels instead, and not renewable energy sources. Governments are unlikely to invest in renewables – but that is a matter of financial hunger and not concern for the safety and longevity of our people, our country, and our earth.
Our actions today will make or break tomorrow.
Renewable energy has longevity, and no adverse effects on climate or human health. The same cannot be said for either nuclear power or fossil fuels such as coal. Critics may blast the shift to renewable energy sources as too expensive and insufficient for the country’s ever-growing energy demand, but if it saves tomorrow, then we should be willing to make some changes today.
Using less power and resources in general is the responsibility of every American citizen. Our earth is not built to endure many of the strains we subject it to. We must begin to develop policies that work with the earth’s delicate ecological balance, and renewable energy is the only option that fits that bill.
The development of more nuclear power may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back – maybe not this year, or in 50 years, but the uncertainty of it all should be deterrence enough.
