A moonbat sobers up

From The Washington Post (of all places):

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

Of course human-caused global warming is an imaginary threat, but it this case it doesn’t matter. Nuclear power is cost –effective and non polluting and does not depend on the Middle East in any way.

There is no excuse for the United States to be using electric power generated in any other way than nuclear.

I’m glad to see that one of the fools who engineered the blockage of nuclear power plant construction has come to his senses. It would be nice to see a word of apology for the part he played in increasing our dependence on foreign oil, but I’ll take the fact that he’s telling the truth now.

The question now is this. Will the other moonbats listen to him or will they ostracize him from the flock or will they turn on him and tear him to bloody bits?

Hit Tip: The American Thinker