And there is no question it worked. When President Bill Clinton and Senator John Kerry sent a kill-shot into nuclear science in America in the early 1990s, Democrats cheered.
Making all nuclear research about weapons was good framing - it was just terrible for science and, as it turns out, for America and the world. Without nuclear energy, we got two generations of increased coal usage and that vaulted the United States into the leadership position in carbon dioxide emissions. Now the descendants of anti-science people against nuclear power want to ban CO2 and they will embrace anything that is not oil - from biofuels to wind to solar panels - regardless of the environmental impact.
The Banning Checklist
(1) Use Political Sympathies In Media To Get Hollywood Movies Made. This is not as easy as it used to be. Regardless of what conservatives may choose to believe, and what progressives may lament, America has actually moved to the right. In the heyday of the anti-nuclear movement, movies like Fail-Safe had big name directors and stars. Efforts to create a "Platoon" about the Iraq War failed spectacularly, people see through the spin now, and The Day After Tomorrow is widely ridiculed in a way only analysts at The Rand Corporation tried to do about Fail-Safe. In the 1970s, liberalism had become so soft on criminals that movies like "Death Wish" were smash hits. Today, gun ownership is up while murders and crime are way down.
Why it has a hard time succeeding. China accounts for twice as much CO2 as the US (28% versus 14%) yet Democrats cheered that President Obama agreed to cut US emissions by 28% from 2005 levels by 2025 while China can engage in unlimited growth until 2030.
Why will Americans want to ration energy so that China can do whatever they want?
(2) Create A False Mythology About The Success Of Old Agreements
How many anti-nuclear activists a generation ago were happy with the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaties? None, it was limiting the US and the USSR to 6,000 nuclear warheads. In 1944, while creating the first atomic bomb, scientists had calculated how many would have to go off before the planet was ruined. They estimated that as few as 10 large bombs could do the trick, so limiting the superpowers to 6,000 wasn't really doing much.
Western anti-nuclear zealots insisted on unilateral disarmament by Europe and the United States, not a reduction. They clearly had the wrong president negotiating for them, if the equivalent deal were struck with China on CO2 today, America would disarm while China would be allowed to take over Asia.
Rebecca Johnston of Notre Dame Australia believes that if the emitters of 70% of world emissions would just get together, the problem would be solved. But an agreement with China is going to be China saying 'we are a developing nation so we are exempt', which leave the EU, with 10 percent of emissions - thanks to all of the nuclear energy they built while the US blocked it - and the US with 14%
