Why Greenpeace co-founder left to pursue nuclear energy

The activist had already helped spearhead Greenpeace’s fight against nuclear testing and had gained international recognition after being arrested for shielding a baby seal from a hunter’s club.
“I had always been afraid of nuclear waste,” he said in an interview. “I thought if I got anywhere near it, it would kill me. But deep down, intellectually, I knew it could work.”
As global warming grew from scientific theory to public concern in the late 1980s, Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, aiming to prove to the environmental community that pro-nuclear environmentalism was not an oxymoron.
Today, he co-chairs the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and is a harsh critic of what he calls an “extremist” anti-nuclear environmental movement — his former Greenpeace colleagues and others who are unwilling to consider nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.
“Anybody taking a realistic view of our country’s energy requirements knows nuclear has to be a big part of the global warming equation,” Moore said. “These environmental groups are not doing that.”
Moore’s critiques of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth have not been well-received. He’s been called a traitor, a prostitute, and has even been branded the “eco Judas” by former colleagues.
“The nuclear industry was very smart about hiring the likes of Mr. Moore. This industry has been looking for a selling point, and it’s picked global warming, an issue it’s incapable of addressing,” said Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio. “We oppose nuclear because of price and waste issues.”As lawmakers begin debating how to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy alternatives, Moore’s transformation is one that a growing number of environmentalists may face.
The nuclear debate has already caused a number of small cracks in the green framework. Both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Wildlife Habitat Council believe nuclear energy must at least be considered as a potential solution.
Moore is not the first green leader to leave his job over the energy debate. A trustee of Friends of the Earth, British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, now deceased, was forced to resign after writing a pro-nuclear article.
Born in British Columbia, Moore walked a natural path of environmentalism.
In 1975, the Canadian was part of the original Greenpeace clan that drew global attention with a rubber boat and a human blockade between a Soviet whaling ship and a sperm whale. Later, Moore served as president of Greenpeace Canada for almost a decade and as a director of Greenpeace International.
Now 60, Moore is chairman of Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental policy consulting firm in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he lives.
Despite some harsh criticism over his job switch, Moore maintains he’s still fighting for the environment.
He’s not a registered lobbyist, describing himself as a coalition builder. His message is basic: People must change their behavior, and the government must change the country’s technology.
He spends much of his time urging environmental groups to abandon their hard-line approach to fossil fuel independence — a prospect that makes many nervous to consider, and most flatly refuse to. Most greens believe that a combination of solar and wind power could answer most of the nation’s energy needs, but nuclear advocates say those sources are unreliable and intermittent.
Much of the resistance, Moore says, is misdirected campaign tactics dating back to the greens’ opposition to the Cold War. Veterans of the early environmental movement have transferred the dangers of nuclear weapons to nuclear energy, using what Moore calls “scare campaigns” to attract supporters.
“This is as foolish as lumping nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons,” he said. “And the worst thing is they are kidding all of us. They clearly know wind and solar alone can’t replace base load power, but they’re trying.”
Coalition building isn’t the only aspect of Moore’s role. He’s also out to polish nuclear energy’s tarnished reputation. On paper, at least, the job appears daunting.
The industry and its lobbyists went into near-hibernation in the mid-1980s after two of the world’s worst nuclear plant accidents: at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine.
Nuclear energy now makes up about 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity output. But no additional reactors have been built lately, in part because of the anti-nuclear movement’s success in thwarting the permitting process.
Moore, though, spins Three Mile Island as a success story. No one was injured during the 1979 incident, in large part because the plant successfully contained the fuel within the reactor.
The message has received increased attention from lawmakers as Congress tackles global warming legislation.
The proposed Climate Security Act in the Senate would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 and reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. But the bill provides no clear-cut guidelines for an energy alternative — a hole the nuclear industry has eyed hungrily.

Time and money continue to be the industry’s toughest sales issues. The construction of a single reactor can take more than 10 years and cost upward of $5 billion.
Long-term government funding is needed to attract Wall Street investors, and Moore says another 100 reactors are needed to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels while keeping up with the nation’s growing energy demands.
Still, there are signs that the nuclear renaissance is under way. More than a dozen U.S. organizations are looking to file applications to build about 31 new reactors, mostly on current sites.
“It’s unbelievable how the landscape has changed. Two or three years ago, the term ‘nuclear renaissance’ hadn’t been coined, and now it’s happening,” Moore said. “I’m kind of chomping on the bit, saying, ‘Hey, guys, it’s time to get going on this thing.’”