NYT Mag: Global Warming Is All Jane Fonda’s Fault

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

Here's something you don't see every day: a liberal publication blaming actress Jane Fonda for anything bad.

Yet, although not written by New York Times staffers, the idea that its Sunday magazine would even consider publishing an article blaming Fonda's 1979 movie "The China Syndrome" for global warming is quite shocking.

Authored by "Freakonomics" writers Stephen J. Dubiner and Steven D. Levitt, "The Jane Fonda Effect" stated quite adroitly what many climate change skeptics have been saying for years (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

"The China Syndrome" opened on March 16, 1979. With the no-nukes protest movement in full swing, the movie was attacked by the nuclear industry as an irresponsible act of leftist fear-mongering. Twelve days later, an accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in south-central Pennsylvania.

Michael Douglas, a producer and co-star of the film - he played Fonda's cameraman - watched the T.M.I. accident play out on the real TV news, which interspersed live shots from Pennsylvania with eerily similar scenes from "The China Syndrome." While Fonda was firmly anti-nuke before making the film, Douglas wasn't so dogmatic. Now he was converted on the spot. "It was a religious awakening," he recalled in a recent phone interview. "I felt it was God's hand."

Fonda, meanwhile, became a full-fledged crusader. In a retrospective interview on the DVD edition of "The China Syndrome," she notes with satisfaction that the film helped persuade at least two other men - the father of her then-husband, Tom Hayden, and her future husband, Ted Turner - to turn anti-nuke. "I was ecstatic that it was extremely commercially successful," she said. "You know the expression ‘We had legs'? We became a caterpillar after Three Mile Island."

The T.M.I. accident was, according to a 1979 President's Commission report, "initiated by mechanical malfunctions in the plant and made much worse by a combination of human errors." Although some radiation was released, there was no meltdown through to the other side of the Earth - no "China syndrome" - nor, in fact, did the T.M.I. accident produce any deaths, injuries or significant damage except to the plant itself.

What it did produce, stoked by "The China Syndrome," was a widespread panic. The nuclear industry, already foundering as a result of economic, regulatory and public pressures, halted plans for further expansion. And so, instead of becoming a nation with clean and cheap nuclear energy, as once seemed inevitable, the United States kept building power plants that burned coal and other fossil fuels. Today such plants account for 40 percent of the country's energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. Anyone hunting for a global-warming villain can't help blaming those power plants - and can't help wondering too about the unintended consequences of Jane Fonda.

Of course, while America was forced by no-nuke activists to build coal-fired power plants, countries around the world thought us Yanks were being foolish:

France, which generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity by nuclear power, seems to think so. So do Belgium (56 percent), Sweden (47 percent) and more than a dozen other countries that generate at least one-fourth of their electricity by nuclear power.

And, 28 years later, many of the same environmentalists who protested against nuclear facilities are now pointing fingers at coal-fired power plants because of the liberal bogeyman of global warming.

How convenient.

Yet, another finger that could be pointed at Fonda besides all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is today's high oil and gas prices. After all, significantly less oil products would have been used in power plants that use such and homes that burn heating oil if more electricity was generated by nuclear facilities.

So, if you really want to pile on Fonda's foolishness, CO2 is only the beginning.

Regardless, maybe policymakers should look at how much damage was done by poor energy decisions decades ago -- precipitated by alarmist eco-hysteria -- and refuse to be bullied into the same mistakes today by folks like Al Gore who are similarly deluded as Fonda was back then.

Or, is that asking for too much from elected officials?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

  <PICTURE OF DOG

 

<PICTURE OF DOG CHASING ITS OWN TAIL>

i thought it was something else

like trying to piss up a rope

anyway i personally haven't crunched the numbers myself, but an episode of Bullshit by Penn & Teller took on the energy problem and by their numbers we have approximately 100 nuclear power plants in this country, and our country could operate entirely of nuclear power if we built just about 300 more, roughtly 400 total nuclear power plants.

energy independance for the most part. it would even drive the global price of a barrel of oil down when you take a massive step that big.

oh but lunatic how can you suggest supporting the building of more nuclear power plants, how would you like to live with that potential danger right in your back yard? it's easy to say when it's someoen else living that close to a nuke plant. well guess what, i do. palo verde nuclear power plant is about 35 miles from me. i've been out there several times on contracts and i'm fully convinced of the safety and dependability after the lessons of 3 mile isle were learned. it's as stooopid as people saying they wont fly because airplanes crash. how stooopid is that. N S of course they crash, but so do cars at a much higher rate of injury and death. as a former helicopter crew chief, i'd trust any nuclear power plant over flying any aircraft any day. and i still fly. unfortunately i still drive on the same roads with all the idiots here in phoenix too.

lunaticcringeradio

How many people died as a

How many people died as a result of radiation exposure in the 3 mile island incident??   A grand total of zero.  If anyone knows differently, please speak up.

I believe in fact that more illness and deaths can be attributed to coal fired plants at any time period than to nuclear power plants.  How many people in the US have actually died as a result of nuclear power generation?  Gotten sick?  Anyone with some stats?  http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol13_4/npaavol4.htm 

dscott's postulate:  The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.

Body count

How many people died as a result of life?  Any numbers?

???

???

(but i do have a count on those who got close to Hildabeast) obviously it is much more dangerous being around Hil than nuclear reactions.

 Support our Troops 

   It may have been janes

   It may have been janes voice but the megaphone is the msm.  They are the ones who have elevated any anti-establishment crackpot who calls themselves an 'environmentalist' to the status of modern day prophet.

Noel,  "Or, is that

Noel,

 "Or, is that asking for too much from elected officials?"

I know it’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer it any way, YEP!

 

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

One Word: PSNH

The textbook example of the anti-nuke hysteria? It's what happened 30 years ago here in New Hampshire to Public Service Company (aka PSNH).

They started their nuclear reactor project at Seabrook, on the NH coastline, but a combination of tree-huggers from nearby UNH, as well as a rarity for New Hampshire at the time, a liberal Democrat Governor-who was born in Portland Oregon, no less!- managed to drive PSNH into bankruptcy.

Only one of the two Seabrook reactors was finished, and today New Hampshire has some of the highest electricity costs in the country. Despite the fact that I have a huge hydroelectric dam that PSNH built 60 years ago less than 10 miles from my home, I pay $100 a month for electricity for a relatively small house. And yes, I use the squiggley light bulbs.

For more on this sorry episode, do a search on Clamshell Alliance

Jane Fonda can be blamed for

Jane Fonda can be blamed for a lot of things, but global warming isn't one of them. Global warming(if it is even occuring) is the result of natural phenomenon.

Anyone checking out Yaho

Anyone checking out Yaho news right now? There's a video up about the Northwest Passage and how arctic ice levels are at a record low.

Thankfully, Noel debunked this over a week ago :D

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Picture 2 Elevators, one with water and one empty

It gets old for people blaming one thing or another every day. One day it is idiots who do not understand market forces blaming bio fuels and the next it is blame old bag Jane.

Where though are the solutions?

Picture in your mind 2 rather large elevators in a tower. One is at the bottom empty and the other is at the top full of water.

Of course they are both attached to cables like regular elevators are, but the cables in this "engine" are attacked to a gears like a transmission which converts a slow moving gear into a fast spinning gear just like your car shifts into higher gears for higher wheel turning speeds.

The "wheel" this is turning is powering a generator making electricity in any range of kilowats the builder wants.

On top the empty elevator is filled with water and starts the descending plunge as the bottom elevator now empty is pulled back on top.

To make it all nice and neat, there are high pressure pumps pumping the water used back up the top reservior to fill the tanks which fill the elevators.

Now Ben Franklin might have dreamed this up as much as DaVinci, but they didn't have the high pressure pumps to move the water.....now America does and these "water engines" which are nothing more than counter weight coocoo clocks which have been working for centuries simply have to be built on scale to produce all the electricity America can use and export in massive lines to China and the rest of Asia for a fortune.

This was the simplified version for explanation which I created. One would have to employ several elevators to make an engine free running with a flywheel to counter and transfers of the elevators, but this is my creation and no one seems interested in it at all.

This engine is self contained, does not pollute one drop of air or water, is easily constructed, costs 1/10th what coal plants cost and 1/100th what nuclear plants cost and is self powered as the electricity generated powers the high capacity pumps and an entire grid as a side effect.

Cheap power and if you want to get cute and preserve your Teddy Kennedy skyline you simply place them in the ocean as tubes which gravity fills with water and all you have to do is pump the water out using pumps or pressure from the elevator vaccum and voila you got more power America than you know what to do with.

I will keep posting this until some dude not in the Rockefeller's pocket or dudette with some male fortitude takes me up on the offer and starts building these electric plants and finds out that trillions of dollars will be created........makes old Billy Gates quite the pauper doesn't it.

Fred Thompson are you listening? I do believe this might get you a landslide victory or at least a few more votes than just talking about gun rights in Florida.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

That was lame lame cherry

Please, pray tell, what powers your high pressure water pumps ?

( another brilliant perpetual motion machine )

It would cost more energy

It would cost more energy to move the water up to the top than it generates on the way down, not to mention the cost of building the thing. Unless you can invent free anti-gravity, it won't be worth the effort.

BTW I am working on the free anti-gravity. :?)

Lame, what you have

Lame, what you have described is a perpetual motion machine.  Such a machine is physically (as in against the Laws of Physics) impossible.  However, if you truly believe what you just wrote, draw up the blue-prints and submit the design for a patent.  A word of warning, though: the U.S. Patent Office requires a working model for all such submissions.  This is because of all the silly people who submitted patent applications or perpetual motion machines in the past.  "There's no such thing as a free lunch" is as true for Physics as it is for Economics. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Noel

It's been a tough day for you today, Noel, what with your favorite targets letting you down. 

:-)

B

B,

Let down? Hardly. After all, you've heard the expression, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day?" If I had the stomach for it, I could easily find ten disgracefully biased articles in today's Times. One shocking piece hardly makes up for the rest of the Democrat talking points!

Moreover, aside from that one New Rule, Maher's entire program last night was a 60 minute Bush bash. I was yelling expletives at the TV set throughout most of it. Didn't you hear me? ns

Was that you? I thought a

Was that you? I thought a bar fight had broken out next door.

B

B,

It did. Sort of. My wife's a lib, and she likes Maher! :-) ns

FYI, Maher's best work

FYI, Maher's best work might have been in the movie "Amazon Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death," co-starring Shannon Tweed. 

bal, you live next to a bar?

LOL-Just yanking your chain a little.

"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts

Dave

Dave,

In an existential way, don't we all live next to a bar? ns

Noel,

LOL-I must confess that down through the years I have, on occasion, wished that I literally lived in one.

BTW-Sorry the Huskers couldn't take it to the condoms tonight. That would have been sweet.

We had a pretty mixed bag here, as Georgia won but Tech just rolled over and died before Boston College.

"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts

Dave

bal lives next to a greeper mosh pit, now an abandoned environmental grass, mud and trash disaster, that looks like heaven to him through the broken basement window. Cindy Sheehan was scheduled to visit once, but the neocon jackboots blocked her access, so bal gets his 10 minutes of standing tippy-toe on the couch, window drool-gazing about what could have been every morning, to keep the revolutionary vanguard burning.

 I don't know why this is here. It's no big deal.

The trouble with Nuclear

The trouble with Nuclear Power (fission) is not the cost of making it, it generates the most toxic waste known to man. Look at the Polonium case in Britian. Polonium is 10,000 times less toxic than nuclear waste and it only took a few milligrams of the stuff to kill one guy. The stuff stays toxic for millions of years and has to be kept contained for that long. Transporting it to a containment facility is even more hazerdous. Fix these problems and I'll be a supporter, until then Domestic Coal, Oil, Hydro-electric, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Geothermal are the way to go.

Notice I didn't say Hydrogen or BioFuel. The truth is both of these are not true resouces, thay are made from other resources just like gasoline is made from oil. Hydrogen is made using electricity that comes from mainly Coal, Oil, or Hydro. Biofuel comes from plants that are grown with fertilisers that are dug out of the earth and grown with solar power.

!

Which leads me to a blog I wrote over a year ago: space garbage. Launch that hazardous waste into space, or into the sun. Either way, it will not affect the earth!

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Space Junk

 The only problem is when the rocket blows up on the launch pad and then suddenly the Cape is now uninhabitable for a few hundred thousand years, I think this was actually considered at one point. Hell the military tried to build a nuclear powered aircraft engine...imagine the hell that would have caused first time one crashed in Jane's backyard....

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat"         R. Reagan

All I have to say is that

All I have to say is that I'm listening intently for any more (rational) solutions to the waste problem.

But I'm getting a bit drowsy.  Hurry it up.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

I have heard that the

I have heard that the French have invented a Fission reactor that uses a fuel that can be reprocessed into a very low radiation level waste. I think they are attempting to keep this technology a secret. Why? They don't need a reason, they are French.

The other answer is Fusion which generates no or very little radioactive waste. Of course solar power is a form of Fusion power. The Sun is giant Fusion reactor.

Nuclear power on planes

Nuclear reactors on planes were tried experimentally in the 1950s. They reached the same conclusion...

While launching nuclear waste into space seems a bad idea, I wonder if we can utilize the waste to power probes.  After all, the Voyager probes, for one example, are powered by plutonium.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Or, alternatively, encase

Or, alternatively, encase the waste in dense ceramic containers and deposit them in the Marianas deep.  The bottom of the deep is over 11 kilometers deep, with a pressure of over 14,000 psi.  The width of the deep is over 40 kilometers, so there would be plenty of room for the nuclear waste containers.  The trench is a subduction zone, so eventually the containers will disappear under the over-riding continental tectonic plate, and the waste will be buried under several kilometers of rock. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Mike... You seem to have

Mike...

You seem to have some knowledge in enough areas that I thought I would bounce a question off of you. If you don't know the answer maybe someone else can chime in.

I live close to a College that recently tore up a parking lot, then proceeded to have well drillers come in and drill 97 holes to a depth of 300 ft. Out of curiosity I stopped one day and asked one of the drillers why they were drilling so many holes. His answer has baffled me since. He told me... the holes will bring up warm water which will be used to heat a new building going up acroos the street. My well is right at 330 ft and I get nothing but ice cold water, so what's up with what he told me???  

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

CT, there are

CT, there are heating/cooling systems that do circulate water deep into the ground.  I haven't checked into them very much, but they do exist.  It sounds as if the system they are installing will probably not be the primary heating source.  The water you get from your well is probably around 55 degrees (F), so it feels really cold when you drink it because it is more than 40 degrees cooler than your body.  Now, if the outside air temperature is, say 30 or 20 degrees, circulating the water from underground will ititially heat the building to the temperature of the water, thereby allowing the primary heating system to work less.

That is the only explanation I can think of, unless the college is above some shallow volcanic field, in which case, transfer asap. ;-)  Your area does not sound as if they are actually trying to use a geothermal system. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Clear Thinker,  I believe

Clear Thinker,  I believe this is what you are asking about:

http://www.groundloop.com/geothermal.htm

Its for a heat-pump which

Its for a heat-pump which works like an air conditioner in reverse. The pump sucks heat out of the ground and concentrates it and sends it into the building. It uses a freon evaporator to do this. Even on a cold day there is heat in the ground.

Bury it in the ocean?

Bury it in the ocean? Ugh...that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. "Hey, fish and marine life! Here's some toxic waste for ya' to chew on!"

Isn't that how Godzilla was created?

China Syndrome....Godzilla.....

...Inconvient Truth....The Day After Tomorrow....

Liberals learn their "science" from the movies.

RJ

"Contact" and "Planet of the Apes"

 Support our Troops 

Not much (if any) life 5

Not much (if any) life 5 miles down, bal.  Even at the mid-Atlantic ridge, which is nowhere nearly as deep as the Marianas deep, the only life is within a few feet around the "black smokers", which are volcanic vents.  The mid-Atlantic ridge is a geologic formation caused by two tectonic plates slowly pulling apart from each other.  The Marianas trench is a subduction zone. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

You can thank Jimmy Carter

You can thank Jimmy Carter on the waste disposal issue.  The breeder reactor program would have taken spent nuclear fuel rods and processed them for reuse.  But, noooooo, feckless Jimmy Carter, the smartest man in the world, stopped the Breeder reactor program in the 70's out of concern for Nuclear Prolifereation.  What a moron he was, since when do US nuclear plants sell spent fuel rods to anyone?  All nuke fuel belongs to the US government, in fact anytime the US supplies nuke fuel to even a foreign operator, that spent full rod must come back to the US.  

It's nice to see the libs are catching on regarding nuclear power, they are beginning to realize there is no way to get around using fossil fuels with it.

dscott's postulate:  The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.

Unfortunate....

 Is the tail wagging the dog, or the dog wagging the tail? Perhaps Jane has her head up the.....

But on to my favorite subject. It really is too bad this country hasen't invested a fraction of the effort it invests in Oil, or trashing the "other" party. Nuke power has such potential. Simply talking supply of uranium there is ample short term supplies and estimates of potential supply that would pwr the world for billions of years. As for waste..France seems to have solved that one..with reprocessing and converting to solid bars for storage.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

 The Navy has been running nuclear reactors since the early 50's without a major accident. If the civilian reactor community adopted the coincidence and redundancy of the naval systems there would be little chance of a major accident. You would have to outright rig those reactors to blowup/meltdown. Hopefully the drive for profit over safety was tempered by the 3mile accident. Any alarm is a bad one. Simply cutting out the alarm to silence it w/o finding the root cause is a sign of bad training and lax proceedures.

My favorite line from the CS...."The Reactor's critical?@!" Well No SxxT Sherlock....A critical reactor is stable,steady state, at pwr...

That's why you launch it in

That's why you launch it in Tahiti.

I think this is totally worth a shot. Only an idiot would not make sure the rocket is safe to launch.

Potential for disaster is something everyone considers all the time.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

The links are dead there,

The links are dead there, here is page where the same links are live.

Links

Of course, while America

Of course, while America was forced by no-nuke activists to build coal-fired power plants, countries around the world thought us Yanks were being foolish:

Except in dear old Britain of course. 

Don't worry. The limeys have proved as equally dumb as the Yanks at killing the nuke goose.

Though combining the trifecta of No New Nuke plants, No New Refineries and No New Oil US based Exploration Drilling does take a special sort of idiocy to which the UK has not quite aspired too. Yet.

 Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

News Buster comments

The world is so simple for some people.  Yes, Nuclear power is the answer to all our problems.  If only the liberal media and the stupid liberals politicians could wake up to that fact.  (never mind dealing with power plant waste and potential problems such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster).

Global Climate Change is not a problem but a myth.  But if it is a problem, let's blame it on the liberals, eg. Jane Fonda and her ilk.

I can't wait to see your comments on Greenspan's new book!  Thanks for a good laugh this morning!

 

Talk about simple.You've

Talk about simple.

You've got to be pretty simple to believe man can a possibly change the climate by driving a car, cranking up the AC, and flying a jet plane.

Sheesh -- that's about a simple as it gets.

I bet you think we're causing the universe to expand as well.

But you are correct on one point.

Most things wrong in society can be traced back to reactionary liberals, socialists and various other oddballs who think the answer to everything is more taxes, higher taxes and even more government control.

Again -- how simple can you get?

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Seeker

Seeker,

Are you really this addle-minded, or are you pretending to be so for our entertainment? Did you notice that the quotes came from a New York Times article, or did that mysteriously elude your supposedly superior liberal intellect?

With that in mind, here's another quote whose source should be obvious, but likely won't be given your apparent lapses of reason: "Thanks for a good laugh this morning!"

Please don't be a stranger, for your comic relief is much appreciated. Have a nice day. ns

I don't think it is fair to

I don't think it is fair to compare Chernobyl to Domestic Nuclear Power Plants.

Chernobyl reactor #4 was a graphite-moderated reactor, an obsolete and unsafe design that was only used in the former Soviet Union for power generation. US reactors are of a much safer design that is able to self-shutdown if the reaction gets too hot. Chernobyl had a design flaw that actually increased the reaction during certain stages of the shut down which caused a failure in the rods and jammed the shutdown mechanism.

More on Chernobyl vs. Three Mile Island

Also. bear in mind that when Three Mile Island occurred, you can bet some heads were rolling. That is what happens when you have accountability in a nation built on democratic traditions.  Note that only 15 curies of radiation were released in the Three Mile Island accident.

Chernobyl (ironically meaning "wormwood") took place in a nation where no one COULD be held accountable by the public at large, and where the government could care less what its people thought.  That accident released 50 MILLION curies of radiation, and was only brought to light after Swedish (and other nations') radiation sensors, strategically placed outside their own nuclear plants, began registering radiation levels that were off the charts!!!   

 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

78%

Too bad for you that France gets 78% of their power from nukes, and hasn't even have a minor mishap as far as I know.  Oh, and they don't even have a permanent waste disposal site!  At least the United States has one in work! 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I remember a bumper sticker

I remember a bumper sticker which said: "More people died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents combined."