Is Nuclear Green Progressive?

I have to credit Meredith Angwin for including Nuclear Green Revolution with other progressive pro nuclear bogs. My impression, at one point, a few years ago was that most pro nuclear bloggers were progressives. Even Kirk Sorensen who has identified himself as being conservative has many ideas that are strictly progressive in their nature. Among current bloggers, I have fewer opinions because my reading handicapped prevents me from reading extensively. My reading handicapped is due to damage to my vision caused by glaucoma.

My actual views are complex and I do share a few attitudes and beliefs in common with conservatives and libertarians while rejecting ideas and viewpoints common among progressives.  I am for example a Zionist and support Israel in its conflict with it's Palestinian neighbors. Although I wish the Palestinians well, I believe that they need to change some of their expectations and attitudes. This has nothing to do with nuclear power and I do not write about it on Nuclear Green. In fact I have not written about it at all for a number of years. There are some progressives who do share my views on this subject.

Supporting nuclear power is itself a heresy among progressives but one that is becoming increasingly common. Witness the progressive views of many if not most pro nuclear bloggers. Most progressives believe that renewable energy resources can replace fossil fuels and indeed nuclear power plants. This is nonsense and suggests that most progressives do not believe in examining their own beliefs. In this respect they resemble conservatives who reject the possibility that using fossil fuel will cause expensive and highly undesirable consequences for the people of this planet.

So, what do I believe in? I believe that the material resources present on earth hold the potential for increasing the affluence of most of the people on this planet. They should not increase the affluence of a few wealthy individuals who's fortunes run into the billions of dollars; at least not until the poorest person in the poorest village in Africa has air conditioning and running water along with a sewer system and a refrigerator. Now there are a lot of people who would describe themselves as progressive who would reject this sort of future. As a future it would not be possible at all if material transformation is dependent on renewable resources. In order to increase the wealth of the people of this planet, we need abundant and reliable energy. The only way to produce abundant and reliable energy is through nuclear power. The perils of anthropogenic climate change are upon us. We are beginning to suffer the consequences of the ever increasing global emissions of CO2.  We must rapidly change from fossil fuel based energy to an energy system that utilizes nuclear power to generate electricity. Nuclear power generating systems should be implemented all over the world to provide abundant electricity to everyone who lives on earth.

There are so called progressives who do not share my vision; who would place the whole of humanity into a situation of permanent poverty. They somehow believe that poverty is better than wealth and the less that people have, the happier they will be. Were this idea to be advanced by people who call themselves conservatives, progressives would rush to the ideological front to defend the human race against the evils which they would see conservatives intending to inflect on it, but as Pogo says: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

I do not believe that it is progressive to dis-empower people, I believe that putting more power rather than less energy into the hands of people is what progressives should be about. As far as developing nuclear technology is concerned, the only technology which I believe can achieve what I regard as the progressive goal is the molten salt nuclear technology. For this reason, advocating for Molten Salt Reactors including LFTRs, is advocating to accomplish liberal goals.