Democrat presidential candidate Marianne Williamson came out against using nuclear energy, which experts say should be used to combat climate change, on Thursday during a climate change town hall on MSNBC, urging students to not use “hard data” when thinking about nuclear energy.
Williamson made the remarks while answering a question from a college student who wanted to know why she thought that nuclear energy was problematic.
“Well I know Germany had said at one point ‘we’re just going no nuclear,’ but then when they said no nuclear there was a problem because they had a hard time keeping up with the other standards they agreed to,” Williamson said. “What is wrong with it? If something goes wrong with nuclear energy, I don’t think people have really stopped to take in the horror.”
“See we need an integrated politics, we need to go beyond hard data, we need to go beyond just thinking about the facts,” Williamson continued. “I want you to think about this with your heart.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency reports (IAEA): “Nuclear power makes a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide while fulfilling at the same time the increasing energy demands of a growing world population and supporting global sustainable development. Nuclear power plants produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants during their operation and only very low emission levels during their entire life cycle. As a result, the use of nuclear power avoids the emission of nearly 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year – the equivalent of taking over 400 million cars off the road per year.”
The IAEA notes that the Paris Climate Accord “points to a continued increased role in the use of nuclear power in the longer term. Its advantages in terms of climate change mitigation, as well as energy security and non-climatic environmental and socio-economic benefits, are important reasons why many countries intend to introduce nuclear power in the coming decades, or to expand existing programs.”
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said earlier this month that if she is elected that she will eliminate the use of nuclear energy by 2035.
“In my administration, we won’t be building new nuclear plants,” Warren said during CNN’s climate change town hall event. “We will start weaning ourselves off nuclear and replace it with renewables.”
Climate expert Ryan Maue, who has a Ph.D. in Meteorology, slammed Warren over her plan, telling The Daily Wire: “Senator Warren’s plan to eliminate nuclear energy would drastically increase carbon emissions and exacerbate the climate crisis she supposedly wants to fight.”
As The Daily Wire reported at the time, even left-leaning publications slammed Warren over her comments on eliminating nuclear energy.
The Week attacked Warren for her position, saying that it is “a serious policy error,” noting that “per unit of electricity generated, oil is 263 times more deadly than nuclear, ordinary coal 352 times deadlier, and lignite coal 467 times deadlier.”
“But there is no credible argument for decommissioning existing plants. And if the crisis is as severe as Sanders, Warren, and the United Nations suggest, then there isn’t really a credible argument against throwing at least some public capital at ‘Hail Mary’ advanced nuclear technologies like small-scale reactors that could — at least theoretically — deliver safe, affordable nuclear energy at scale,” New York Magazine reported. “The technology is simply too promising to ignore, especially considering the current limitations of renewables. As science writer (and democratic socialist) Leigh Phillips notes, ‘Nuclear power has an emissions intensity as low as that of onshore wind … but unlike wind can power hospitals 24/7.'”