Ron Paul On Nuclear EnergySubmitted by kevink on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 12:10
He does say it's very very dangerous but he also said he's convinced it's the safest form of energy that we can have.
In light of Fukishima and how it apparently has reached California, I will say it really scares me. I don't like government interfering in business but let's say that a nuclear explosion makes life unlivable on the planet? Are monetary damages to a nuclear company going to make any difference? I feel the same way about hydro-fracking as well actually.
I hope I don't get slammed for posting this because I am a very staunch Ron Paul supporter and believe in almost all of his policies. The one that has always worried me, though, is the environment. Admittedly he has said that his views on environmentalism haven't been well elucidated (though he does think that they are strong and will work). I know he always mentions property rights when it comes to this (saying they would take care of almost all the problems).
But again, what about the case where an accident destroys a large are of land, making it unlivable? Is monetary compensation going to fix that? And even if it could, wouldn't the company just declare bankruptcy and the payments never would get made? And I also want to say that it might not even take an accident (e.g. nuclear explosion) for the dangers of something to be exposed. What then?
And lastly, wouldn't we have to rely on the court system to enforce justice? How has that been working out lately as far as courts taking on big business?