During last night’s climate town hall, Bernie Sanders said he was opposed to nuclear power because of the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters:
Citing Fukushima, Chernobyl nuclear disasters, Sanders says "safest way forward [to decarbonizing our economy and tackling climate change] is moving to sustainable energy"#CNNClimateTownHall
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) September 5, 2019
CNN’s Bill Weir was the one who asked Bernie the question which is why we wonder why this brutal fact check was being offered up on Twitter and not to his face on live TV:
.@BernieSanders invokes Fukushima and Chernobyl when answering my question on his opposition to nukes.
I covered Fukushima.
It was scary as hell at the time but in hindsight….
— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) September 5, 2019
…a UN report found "no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants."
Some experts believe that many more people were killed by the stress of evacuation than would have gotten cancer.— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) September 5, 2019
As for Chernobyl, the miniseries was scary as hell and while the official death toll is 47, some think it was more like 4,000.
Horrible.
But around 10,000 people die EVERY DAY from the from the air pollution created by burning carbon.
I have no dog in this fight…— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) September 5, 2019
…but I've been to Port Arthur, Texas and can't understand why the anti-nuke crowd isn't equally passionate about shutting those monster refineries down.
Honest question for those who fear nuclear as much as Bernie does…what are you most afraid of and why?
— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) September 5, 2019
FWIW, Elizabeth Warren had basically the same answer to Sanders on nuclear power, which really shows that both candidates don’t really care about reducing emissions:
Recommended
Nuclear power an interesting example of how much you care about combatting climate change per se, as opposed to articulating the liberal orthodoxy (which is obviously way more climate-friendly than the conservative orthodoxy, to be clear) on a range of climate-adjacent issues. https://t.co/HeS8BfqxzW
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 5, 2019
Warren, especially, pretends to be above the politics of it all but she’s really not:
That's sort of proving my point, though. Maybe there are tactical, partisan, political reasons not to include nuclear in the plan you articulate initially. Those aren't really policy reasons, though. https://t.co/I0Paw0q9nR
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 5, 2019
***
Warren gets a LOT of credit from the media—and from voters—for being wonkish and policy rather than poll-driven. But she holds very few positions that aren't good politics for her, in terms of appealing to the Democratic primary electorate. That's a tension worth exploring.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 5, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member