Podcast – download the MP3 File Here
During a recent conversation over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a friend asked if anyone in the group was boycotting BP. This led to a lively discussion about the effectiveness of boycotts and the inevitable question,
“Who do you boycott?”
Before I answer that question, I want to make it clear that I don’t want to get overly negative. I am sometimes critical of so called “environmental” groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who seem to be against everything yet provide no realistic alternatives. In my view, to boycott one person, place or thing means I will support an alternative.
You don’t have to look very hard to find celebrities or companies who are actively working against the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. There was a time in my life that going to the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream shop was a ritual. The company opened one of their first retail stores in a renovated gas station about a block from my apartment in Saratoga Springs, NY where I lived when I worked at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. As the company grew and the profits rolled in their founders began to become politically active in Vermont. Unfortunately they jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon and began to support groups like Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility who advocate shutting down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. I made the decision not to buy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream because every scoop I ate was helping to fund activist efforts to shut down Vermont’s only nuclear plant. It’s too bad Ben & Jerry’s fails to understand that without Vermont Yankee the electricity used to manufacture their ice cream would necessarily come from fossil fuels, and would contribute to air pollution and climate change. They are probably unaware that Vermont is one of the only states to continue burning oil to generate electricity. Their anti-nuclear campaign is in effect supporting the continued use of oil and other fossil fuels. Fortunately for me there are plenty of ice cream alternatives!
I’m a big fan of Tom Clancy novels, and one of my favorites is “Hunt for Red October.” I’ve read the book and enjoyed the movie when it premiered, but unfortunately I’ll never watch it again. That’s because one of the stars of that movie is Alec Baldwin, an actor who has personally contributed millions of dollars to efforts to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York and the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey.
Baldwin and his actress wife Kim Basinger support the anti-nuclear Radiation and Public Health Project, and have lobbied the NY State Government to acquire funding for the group. The Radiation & Public Health Project is responsible for several junk science reports that claim commercial reactors are responsible for thousands of cancer deaths to plant workers and the general population around the plants. Baldwin is also a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post which gives him a soap box on which to promote his radical anti-nuclear ideas (I am not against the Huffington Post. In fact I follow a few of their other contributors regularly). Some recent anti-nuclear articles by Alec Baldwin include The Hidden Costs of Nuclear Power and The Truth About Nuclear Power in Utility Reactors.
I will not watch any movie or television show in which Alec Baldwin or Kim Basinger appear. To do so would support their ability to provide financial aid to anti-nuclear groups. If you think about it, their ability to influence public opinion is based on their celebrity, and that is directly tied to the size of their audience. If everyone quit watching Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger then their value as lobbyists and spokespersons would diminish and their ability to financially support such efforts would decline.
So tell me . . . do you boycott any companies or entertainers? If so, who?
Post a comment and share your thoughts.
#1 by Jason Ribeiro on June 6, 2010 - 10:14 PM
This is an interesting topic. On one hand we should stand up for what we believe in and on the other hand these boycott efforts seem to do little to change things. Exxon, for example, was boycotted after their Alaskan spill by many but didn’t put a dent in their momentum to become the biggest corporate profit producer in history.
I too choose to avoid Alec Baldwin’s movies, but my inner cynic says it makes little difference, the point is to stand by one’s principles nonetheless. Alec Baldwin is an easy one to avoid. Boycotting petroleum is virtually impossible.
Because the demand for oil permeates all aspects of life, the oil companies are too powerful in many instances. The only thing that can take on oil is a better energy source – Go Nuclear!
#2 by Bob Stannard on June 7, 2010 - 5:20 AM
I boycott liars. The company, Entergy, that operates Vermont’s aged, leaking, collapsing nuclear power plant cannot, it appears, under any circumstances tell the truth.
The fact is that nuclear plants release radiation every day in a “controlled” way sanctioned by the NRC. People are being exposed to more and more radiation all the time and coincidentally we contract cancer. Yes, I can hear you scream that cancer is caused by all kinds of things, including the sun and that’s true. But it is also caused by radiation leaving the nation’s 104 nuke plants. We need to focus more on lifestyle changes rather than drilling for more oil of building more nukes that create waste for which we have no solution.
That’s simply insane.
#3 by Meredith Angwin on June 7, 2010 - 7:11 AM
This is an interesting question. Turns out the company “Seventh Generation” in that anti-nuke consortium with Ben and Jerry’s. I give up Ben and Jerry’s ice cream easily, but giving up my fave dishwashing detergent is harder. And if I don’t write Seventh Generation a letter (dear sir, due to your support of groups against clean nuclear power, I have decided…) how the heck will they KNOW I changed dishwashing detergent?
Well, there’s another brand detergent I was thinking of trying anyway. I will use this as an opportunity to explore my options.
#4 by Blubba on June 7, 2010 - 12:26 PM
In the big scheme of things, I question the effectiveness of boycotts unless they develop a “critical mass” (pun intended). For example, if millions of people boycotted the movie “Up!” because of Ed Asner’s antinuclear views, it might cause the studios to reconsider offering Mr. Asner roles in future projects. But such actions would be unlikely to change Asner’s (or Bonnie Raitt’s or Ed Begley Jr.’s or James Cromwell’s or Susan Sarandon’s or Christie Brinkley’s or …) views on nuclear. If I boycotted every celebrity who held irrational beliefs contrary to mine (like Paul McCartney’s stance against genetically modified food and Jim Carey’s anti-vaccination views), I would be left listening to little other than the Boomtown Rats and watching few movies other than Cool Hand Luke.
That said, Jim Carey seems a lot less funny and Alec Baldwin a lot less entertaining the more I know about them and find myself channel surfing when I see them on screen (other than Hunt for Red October and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective).
#5 by Jason Ribeiro on June 7, 2010 - 5:41 PM
@Bob Stannard, in the interest of keeping things honest, I’m curious, could you please point to the exact regulation from the NRC which allows for this “controlled” way sanctioned by the NRC that you speak of?
I’m sure the NRC has this rule published on their website for everyone to see, so if you could supply a link to it or the steps required to read the regulation in their document retrieval system, then by all means please do so. This way we can begin to clear up any misconceptions about any said rules that may apply. I’m serious, I really want to read this “rule”.
But before you go on the search, I hope you are aware that coal combustion is the most radioactive contaminating energy source there is by the fact that it is particularizing elements like radium, thorium, and uranium for everyone to breathe in.
#6 by John Wheeler on June 7, 2010 - 9:38 PM
Mr. Stannard,
If you are concerned about truths and mistruths, then perhaps you might start with the web site of your employer, the anti-nuclear group Vermont Citizens Action Network (where you are employed as a lobbyist).
On this page:
http://www.vtcitizen.org/index.php/no-good-deal.html there are several untrue or misleading statements including:
(1) “We can replace Vermont Yankee through a diverse package of energy solutions that include biomass, renewables and most importantly efficiency.” The truth: while each of these components could contribute a small amount to replacing the energy provided by VY, the bulk of replacement power would come from natural gas power plants in neighboring states.
(2) “a considerable amount of VY’s power can be replaced through efficiency”. The truth: Even if efficiency could reduce demand by 10% (very unlikely), that would not come close to eliminating the need for power from Vermont Yankee.
(3) “Vermont Yankee’s power can easily be replaced with cleaner and safer options” The Truth: the “cleaner, safer” options you’re taking about are natural gas plants like the one that recently exploded and killed 5 people in CT just 100 miles from VY .
Vermont Yankee is as asset to the state. Even the most highly politicized event at the plant, a miniscule tritium leak, posed no risk to plant workers, the public, or the environment, and broke no laws.
#7 by Chuck P. on June 8, 2010 - 5:05 PM
Bob Stannard said;
“The fact is that nuclear plants release radiation every day in a “controlled” way sanctioned by the NRC.”
The fact is that Bob Stannard’s body releases radiation every day in a “controlled” way sanctioned by the NRC. Bob Stannard’s body contains radioactive C-14 and radioactive K-40 witch will remain radioactive for billions of years.
Bob,
If you look close enough, you’ll find that just about everything is radioactive. Everything releases radioactivity. To say that one particular thing (like Vermont Yankee) releases radioactivity is meaningless without talking about HOW MUCH radioactivity it releases. The reason I can say that just about everything is radioactive is that we can detect and measure radioactive material almost down to the single atom. That means we could measure the minute quantities of slightly radioactive tritium that did not leave the plant site, endanger anyone, or harm the environment.
The difference between the radioactivity released by nuclear plants and other radiation releases is that releases from nuclear plants are tightly regulated and measured while the radioactivity in the wastes of other forms of energy generation are specifically exempted from regulation.
In the history of nuclear energy, not one single person has ever been harmed by so called nuclear waste.
If Vermont Yankee is shut down, it will mostly be replaced by burning natural gas; The same material that exploded in CT and killed 5 people; the same material that, along with oil, has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for the past month after it exploded and killed 11 people; the same material that when burned, releases waste for which we have no solution.
That’s simply insane.
#8 by John Englert on June 8, 2010 - 7:58 PM
First, Mr. Stannard, do you know the difference between radiation and radioactivity?
I boycott Coors since they’ve moved their corporate headquarters out of Colorado and now they’re not even an “American” brewery. Fortunately there are alternatives such as the numerous micro-brews from Colorado.
It’s too bad that Dr. Helen Caldicott doesn’t sell a product that I could boycott.
#9 by Rod Adams on June 13, 2010 - 2:12 PM
I choose to respond to Alec Baldwin’s active starring role in the anti-nuclear industry a bit differently. First of all, I point out that trusting an actor to provide good information merely because he seems convincingly sincere is a strange reaction. After all, aren’t good actors specifically taught how to be convincing while telling stories that are purposely designed to be entertaining, not truthful?
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-today-asks-readers-if-they-should.html
Secondly, there is no reason to punish myself in any action aimed at punishing a person who is actively working against an important tool that can enable the advancement of human society. Instead, since I really like watching good submarine movies like Red October, I simply choose to watch the DVD copy that I purchased years ago.
That way, Baldwin does not receive any benefits from my enjoyable action. He is a fine actor; he has simply chosen a lousy role in the energy drama.
#10 by Thomas Clegg on June 14, 2010 - 5:17 PM
Hi My name is Tom Clegg. I work at Indian Point. I have worked there for 28 years. I am a Mechanic. As for boycotting, I think a much more effective method is to buy stock in the movie company or Hagindaz(They now own Ben & Jerry’s) Show up at stock holders meetings and strongly voice your concerns there. You don’t have to buy allot of stock, but just think if 500 people purchased 1 stock each and complained. Now we have the strong voice
#11 by SteveK9 on June 17, 2010 - 4:34 PM
Think positive, not negative. Is there a way to get some celebrities on the pro-nuclear side? We lost Paul Newman unfortunately. However, I think there are quite a few news stories now on Bill Gates support of Terra Power (traveling wave reactor). Whether you think TerraPower has something, or is just a flash in the pan, I think this is great publicity. I think there are a lot more people who are influenced by Bill Gates on ‘technology’ than Alec Baldwin. Keep building up the positive. At the end of the day nuclear power will be the primary energy source for humanity. If it is a bit discouraging to see what is going on in the U.S. you can always read some stories about Asia. China, India, Japan, S. Korea are going all out. In the aggregate I think humanity is rational. We should keep fighting the good fight, but keep in mind the ‘duh’ moment when nuclear is really built up in the U.S. will arrive.
#12 by Thomas Clegg on June 17, 2010 - 5:08 PM
The problem is I saw someone at my plant eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. I said to that individual why are you eating that product? Don’t you know that companies owners are against nuclear power and are active in trying to close VY. He didn’t know that. Getting word out is slow if at all. Never mind trying to get people from different companies that own nuclear power plants. The attitude seams to be what goes on in Vermont will never happen here.
Here are some interesting facts. I found it on the petroleum engineers web site years ago. A thousand megawatts powers about one million homes. The only reliable ways to do this are oil, coal,naturel gas or nuclear. I forgot natural gas. But oil is 40,000 barrels of oil a day(42 gallons equal one barrel), 9 thousand tons of coal a day or 16 pounds of uranium.
#13 by Wildbird on June 19, 2010 - 10:56 AM
Screw FREINDS OF THE EARTH and GREENPEACE their the biggist bunch of nit-wits around and absolutly stupid as well
#14 by Tweenk on June 20, 2010 - 1:21 PM
@John Wheeler
It’s great to see a dishonest lobbyist get exposed and totally obliterated like that. The power of the response is on par with the one from the Blue Jeans Cables president against a cease-and-desist from Monster Cables.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
#15 by Tweenk on June 20, 2010 - 1:29 PM
@Jason Ribeiro
I think by “controlled radiation releases” he means the effluent gases which are routinely released from nuclear plants, which contain some radioactive xenon and iodine from fission products. However, the dose from the effluent gases to the surrounding population is at least 4-5 orders of magnitude lower than from natural background radiation.
The central issue remains that people: 1. do not know that low level radiation is everywhere, 2. cannot put numbers related to radiation in perspective.
#16 by Bryen Cheng on June 24, 2010 - 6:26 PM
I agree with your views. Environmental groups and the media tend to criticize nuclear energy while providing no other alternatives. Here is a good article about that: http://nut.bz/16zh8npy. But, i think boycotting a celebrity or company just because of their views might be an overreaction.
#17 by Yourmom on June 27, 2010 - 8:30 AM
Where you say, “They are probably unaware that Vermont is one of the only states to continue burning oil to generate electricity.” WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HOPE NO ONE BELIEVES THAT GARBAGE SENTENCE! I COULDN’T EVEN READ THE REST, BECAUSE AFTER THAT SENTENCE ALL I COULD THINK WAS, “WRONG!” Almost all electricity usage from every state comes from burning fossil fuels. Why would you go through the trouble of writing something so long when you didn’t even do your homework?!
#18 by John Wheeler on June 28, 2010 - 8:14 AM
Yourmom,
I think that you may want to do some homework of your own to familiarize yourself with what’s really going on in Vermont.
My source is the US Energy Information Administration. On average in the USA, 69% of electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, but only 1% is from burning oil. The other 68% comes from burning other fossil fuels: coal (45%) and natural gas (23%).
In Vermont two of the top ten largest power plants in the state burn oil; the Berlin 5 plant owned by Green Mountain Power (a Canadian owned company), and the Burlington GT plant, owned by the City of Burlington. In 2008 burning oil produced more than 7,000 megawatt hours of electricity in Vermont. In recent years that figure was as high as 60,000 megawatt hours (in 2000).
While not part of the current electricity equation, it’s worth noting that three-fourths of all homes in Vermont burn oil for heat. If Vermonters switched to electricity for their heat it would eliminate a huge amount of oil being burned because of Vermont’s large share of electricity from hydro and nuclear.
Nationwide, utilities in MOST states and territories have replaced burning oil with cheaper nuclear energy and other fossil fuels – natural gas and coal. Exceptions are remote locations like parts of Alaska, and islands like Hawaii and Puerto Rico where grid limitations, fuel storage concerns and transportation of fuel by truck or ship made oil a more cost effective option than coal or natural gas.
#19 by Wildbird on July 11, 2010 - 3:07 PM
I wont even taste a sample of BEN & JERRY they donate to radical enviromentalists and i refuse to buy CLOROX since their support the SIERRIA CLUB