Simon

The Italian nuclear engineer and safety expert Cesare Silvi explains why he left his former pro-nuclear stance for solar and other renewable energy sources: "I soon came to the conclusion that neither international cooperation nor technological advancements would guarantee human societies to build and safely run nuclear reactors in all possible conditions on Earth (earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wars, terrorism, climate change, tsunamis, pandemics, etc.). I am sadly reminded of this turning point in my life as I listen to the news about the earthquake, tsunami and extremely worrying nuclear crisis in Japan." Silvi warns that "there will definitely be worse accidents" if we continue with nuclear power: "Why not consider Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima as warnings of greater catastrophes to come and avoid the inevitable by shutting them down, much like changing your diet and/or lifestyle after finding out that your cholesterol or blood pressure is elevated, rather than continuing down the same path until a heart attack or stroke strikes?" According to Silvi the world could easily replace nuclear power simply by reducing our energy usage and introducing energy efficiency programs: "Nuclear today only generates about 12 percent of the developed world’s electricity. By instituting an energy efficiency program,” Silvi suggests, “we could fill the gap caused by shutting them all down and put this malevolent genie back into the bottle." And the public in Italy seems to agree with Silvi's anti-nuclear sentiments as they voted against new investments in nuclear energy in a recent referendum in the country. In Japan only 19 of the 54 country's nuclear reactors are now operating. The others are offline for various reasons since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. At the same time the country's wind farms are fully operational and were actually unscathed by the massive earthquake disaster. And people claim that nuclear is a stable energy source...

Janusz Lewandowsk, the Polish budget commissioner and chief architect of the EU's forthcoming €130 multi-annual budget, is receiving strong criticism after expressing his doubts about global warming and the future emission policies of the EU. In an interview with a Polish newspaper Lewandowsk said that: "We already have overambitious agreements on CO2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such." He also expressed doubts about EU's future climate goal saying the CO2 reduction targets "are too ambitious for the Polish economy" and that "a quick jump away from coal" would for Poland "be a disaster". And this was no misquote from the Polish newspaper. A spokesman for Lewandowski even confirmed the accuracy of the statements later to the EU observer: "His overall line is that it would be impossible for Poland to shift away from coal overnight. But he also expressed his doubts over climate change, in a personal capacity," Patrizio Fiorilli told this website. Environmental organizations and political groups are afraid that Lewandowsk's science and climate skepticism will affect the drafting of the €130 budget that will form EU's political course of action and structure between 2014 and 2020. But the Polish climate skepticism comes as no surprise. Poland helped block strong European leadership on climate during the Cop14 climate summit in 2008. And it's an even less surprise considering the fact that Poland relies heavily on coal, around of 90%, for its electricity generation. Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: "It's terrifying that the man in charge of Europe's budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin's Republican party. "He has a huge influence over all of our economic futures and yet not only does he deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change, but he's also opposing measures that leading businesses say would drive green growth and create millions of new jobs in Europe's clean industries." The environmental organization WWF also expressed their worry about the climate change denying budget chief: "It comes as a shock, especially following the commission president's recent statements. So much for collegiality," said Tony Long, director of the WWF's Brussels office. "That degree of climate change scepticism is now rare in Europe, and even rarer among politician's of Lewandowski's seniority." "One can't have much faith in the commission's budget proposals if one of the chief architects admits in a private capacity that he has doubts over global warming." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso shows no sign of worry though. Saying that "the effects of climate change are - quite literally - all around us" and that the EU will stay it's course on climate change. But one can only imagine how embarrassed Barroso must be from Lewandowsk's anti-science statements.

Greenpeace's new corporate bad guy target is Europe's biggest car company Volkswagen (VW) who is "spending millions" trying to stop stricter climate laws in Europe, the environmental organization claims. In a (cute) two-part spoof video (watch below) of Volkswagen's 'The Force' superbowl ad Greenpeace is trying to put pressure on the automaker to support strong fuel efficiency standards, stop opposing CO2 emission cuts and to actually start producing cars with the latest green technology. "Our home—Earth—is in trouble. VW opposes key environmental laws we need if we’re going to stop our planet going the way of Alderaan (bye bye). But all is not lost. We feel the good in Volkswagen. All of us in the Rebellion are calling on Volkswagen to turn away from the Dark Side and give our planet a chance." According to Greenpeace the automaker "is spending millions of Euros every year funding lobby groups who are trying to stop Europe increasing its commitment to greenhouse gas reductions from 20% to 30% by 2020". Volkswagen "can't afford to be left behind" while more "progressive companies" like Google, Ikea, Sony, Unilever and Philips supports the tougher climate targets, Greenpeace writes on their new campaign website. They also call for Volkswagen to stop with its lobbying work and instead support stronger fuel efficiency targets that will benefit both consumers and our climate: "More efficient cars are cheaper to run, use less oil and emit less CO2. Volkswagen has a history of lobbying against the strong European standards that we need to kick our oil addiction. As the biggest car company in Europe, with the biggest responsibility, VW must change and support strong standards from now on." Greenpeace also want to see that Volkswagen make their entire car fleet oil-free by the year 2040 saying the automaker should put their technology where their mouth is. "Volkswagen says it wants to be “the most eco-friendly automaker in the world”, but only 6% of the cars it sold in 2010 were its most efficient models. It has the technology to do better. VW must set out its plan to make its entire fleet oil-free by 2040." Sign the "rebel manifesto" here and help put pressure on Volkswagen. You can also read Greenpeace's report for a more detailed look on the Dark Side of Volkswagen. Watch the video:

In an essay titled "Climate of Denial", published by the Rolling Stone magazine, the former Vice-president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore criticizes President Barack Obama for failing to do enough to tackle climate change. Gore does acknowledge the "incredible challenges" that is confronting President Obama and recognizes the climate-friendly efforts Obama has achieved, such as the historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and for instructing EPA to "move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act". But despite this Gore says Obama has "failed" to present "bold action on climate change" and that Obama has only "slightly" moved the country forward on the climate issue. Gore writes: "But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates including one Republican felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil." Because Obama failed to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution in the US he also contributed, Gore writes, to the disappointing failure of securing a global climate treaty at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen (Cop15) in 2009. "The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"" Gore also directed strong criticism against Obama for failing to defend the climate science from "dishonest attacks" by the climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry. "President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public." There is really no denying. Since taking office in 2008 Obama has failed to bring the change he promised. His track record has so far been a huge disappointment, especially when it comes to the climate crisis. Gore is just saying what has been on many environmentalists minds for a while now. And yet people who want to see real change on the climate issue doesn't have many political options. As Dina Cappiello from the Associated Press writes: "Regardless of views such as Gore's, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would hurt the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not go to the polls." And this is really where the problem lies. The current two-party system in the US is undemocratic and is now also clearly responsible for killing our climate. But it's a political system that Al Gore still remains a firm supporter of.