Biden-era Climate Activists Face Nuclear Reality

It seems the climate activist class might be slow to realize that clean energy’s future is closely tied to nuclear power.

Even among the more progressive politicians, there’s a hint of acknowledgment on this front.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, for instance, has instructed the state’s Public Powers Bureau to initiate a project for an advanced nuclear power generation of one gigawatt.

This news arrives shortly after former President Donald Trump issued several executive orders aimed at reinforcing America’s nuclear energy capabilities.

Site evaluations, collaborations with the private sector, and labor support are already in the works.

Although Hochul and Trump belong to vastly different political spheres, they seem to grasp a fundamental truth: nuclear energy can provide what options like wind and solar sometimes cannot.

It’s the only zero-emission energy resource capable of consistently meeting today’s substantial electricity demands.

After all, our modern existence relies heavily on electricity for AI computing, chip manufacturing, electric vehicles, and data centers—it can’t thrive on power dependent on weather conditions.

Right now, the costs associated with storing surplus energy from wind and solar remain prohibitively high, and both sunlight and wind are, well, a bit unpredictable.

Nuclear energy stands out as the reliable clean alternative that can operate around the clock.

Trump’s recent orders recognize this reality, advocating for a quick timeline to reauthorize dormant reactors, revamp domestic uranium supply chains, and expedite the development of next-generation reactors for military bases and AI infrastructure.

The ambition is to achieve a new capacity of 300 gigawatts by 2050, placing nuclear power at the core of America’s competitiveness and safety.

Hochul seems to realize that New York’s targets for electrification hinge on incorporating nuclear energy.

The movement away from fossil fuels has led to increased demand that the existing grid simply can’t satisfy, further complicated by the early closure of facilities like Indian Point in Westchester.

Though she may not openly say it, her strategies largely build on the groundwork laid by Trump in recent months.

His leadership, coupled with an efficient Nuclear Regulatory Authority review, supply chain overhauls, and surging bipartisan support, has paved the way.

Yet, while some Democrats are beginning to adapt, the entrenched climate-activist wing remains resistant.

Organizations like the Coalition of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative have funneled millions into initiatives aimed at obstructing nuclear energy growth.

They’re instinctively against new reactor proposals, licensing reforms, and any efforts to revive domestic fuel production.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has spent years launching climate lawsuits designed to hold parties accountable for climate change, aiming for “reparations” and for limiting future harms, utilizing funds from various donors like The Tides Foundation.

After Trump’s executive orders, UCS director Edwin Lyman, who has often critiqued nuclear power, urged the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to overlook them.

The Sierra Club, which once leaned conservative, now predominantly channels donations into Democratic campaigns, assisting President Biden’s campaign to ban gas stoves.

With backing from figures like Ted Turner and former President Obama’s energy secretary, the Nuclear Threat Initiative is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other influential networks.

These groups seem increasingly out of touch with global scientific consensus and public sentiment, even among the Democratic officials they once rallied behind.

They like to portray themselves as scientific watchdogs concerned with citizens’ interests, but it appears their core mission is to inject radical, unpopular agendas into American politics, arguably benefiting adversaries more than the environment itself.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is advancing in nuclear energy capabilities. China is working on small modular nuclear reactors for global export, while Russia invests in power plants across Africa and Eastern Europe.

These nations aren’t hindered by activist lawsuits and donor-influenced campaigns, allowing them to invest in impactful tools for emission reduction and economic growth.

In the U.S., support for nuclear energy is on the rise.

The conversation about our energy future is essential, regardless of climate activist sentiments.

America is fortunate to have a leader who acknowledges this and is prepared to act accordingly.

Avoiding a scenario where disconnected, donor-backed litigants dictate U.S. nuclear policy—as seen in the Biden administration—is crucial.

The nation simply cannot afford to dwell in nostalgia.