While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters. . . .
By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media—especially conservative media—give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.
Some of the other most visible environmental apostates include Dr. James lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth is a living entity, and Stewart Brand, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. in public-relations campaigns, such converts play an insidious role, allowing the industry to substitute these few individuals as stand-ins for the entire environmental movement. Most reporters or editors fail to point out that while a handful of environmentalist may have changed their views on nuclear power, virtually no grassroots environmental groups have become pro–nuclear energy because of its potential role in alleviating global warming.
Follow the Money
Even the best public-relations campaign will only get you so far when it comes to the American nuclear industry’s life blood: federal money. The nuclear industry has spent lavishly on an armada of lobbyists, while not neglecting to hand out millions more in the legalized form of bribery we politely call campaign contributions, and its decades of federal subsidies are worth every penny the industry invested over the years to secure the cooperation of key members of Congress and presidents.
in 2010, American University’s investigative Reporting Workshop published a major report on the nuclear industry’s money blitz, using campaign finance donations and lobbying reports to piece together a highly revealing portrait. led by reporter Judy Pasternak, the group found that between 1999 and the third quarter of 2009, the nuclear industry spent $645 million in lobbying, and almost $63 million in campaign contributions.
Pasternak found a close correlation between bursts of expenditures on lobbying and specific legislative priorities:
in the first half of last year, when Congress was considering whether to add nuclear loan guarantees to the economic stimulus package and was starting to work on the climate change bill, companies and unions interested in nuclear energy spent more than $55.8 million on lobbying, the analysis found.
Legislators who benefitted from the industry’s largesse did not hesitate to abuse the legislative process in an effort to steer yet more federal money to nuclear power. For example, spending in the economic stimulus bill was supposed to go to “shovel-ready” projects in order to reduce unemployment quickly. But that didn’t stop Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah),
who received $56,000 in nuclear-interest donations from 1999 to 2008, [and] pitched the addition of $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry to the economic stimulus bill. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., allowed it; he chairs the energy appropriations subcommittee and has received $190,000 in industry contributions since 1999, nearly half of that in 2007–2008. Although nuclear power plants starting a multi-year licensing process are hardly “shovel-ready,” “You take the vehicles you can get,” Bennett said in an interview.
