Uppity Wisconsin

Frank Jablonski, the pro-nuclear environmentalist and lawyer, thinks he was unfairly maligned in an item I wrote here back in March, fingering him as a paid lobbyist for the nuclear industry. (I wasn't the first; PR Watch had already done it.)

Let's give him his say first. I'll respond below.

Just tracked a story on nuclear. Re: your story on nuclear power presentations to legislative committees (from a couple of months ago) - - NEI (the Nuclear Energy Institute) did not, contrary to what your story indicated, pay for my work preparing or presenting my position on nuclear energy. NEI does pay for some of my nuclear advocacy work to individual legislators, and related research and incidental work.

Virtually all of the research and thinking presented to the legislative committees, as well as my fundamental change of position on nuclear (kindly described as a "flip flop" by your article) predated my meeting anyone from NEI.

I see the divergence in my views from what most of my colleagues feel as deriving from my refusal, after long study, to pick and choose which general scientific consensus' I will accept on energy and the environment. I arrived at this change of position on nuclear, by the way, based on 2- 3 years of fairly intensive restudy of the issue, which involved a lot of thinking-things-through.

Based on what I have read and looked over (a lot of information) I accept both the general scientific consensus on climate change (its happening, and dangerous and we should do our best to stop it or limit it), and the general scientific consensus on nuclear energy (its problems are manageable, its potential is high, and public policy should encourage a strong role for it in a sustainable energy future).

To do otherwise, i.e., to pick and choose which general scientific consensus you will accept, looks, to me, dangerously similar to what right wingers do on issues where they have an emotional investment.

I believe that, within environmental and progressive organizations there are a lot of people who suspect that the position I have taken (favoring nuclear power's use, expansion and further development within a framework of public interest regulation) is more appropriate than continuing to say no. I also think that it is really hard for institutions, or people within them, to change long-held positions.

So I am a pro-nuclear, pro-renewables, pro-energy efficiency liberal lawyer from Madison who looks to use some of his time and work to advance work for what he considers to be "good causes." For work that I do for NEI, I extend to NEI a discount against fees. I have done the same thing for others (Clean Air Madison, RENEW Wisconsin, Clean Wisconsin, Kickapoo Valley Stewardship Alliance), and I expect I will do it again. All these organizations get a discount or free work for the same reason: I consider it to be public interest work.

My change in position has not particularly enhanced my popularity among some people in the "crowd that I run with." But it was the right thing to do.

If you ever want to actually talk about the issue or have a structured pro-and-con dialogue, let me know. Nuclear energy, and the issues that get raised when people talk about it is actually even more fascinating that the "man bites dog" or "man who bit dog allegedly paid to do so" stories.

Here, in its entirety, is what I wrote about Jablonski in March:

The star lobbyist in Wisconsin -- although he usually isn't identified as a lobbyist -- is Frank Jablonski, a former environmental lawyer who's done a flip-flop on nuclear power. As Farsetta notes, the media love stories about no-nukers who've jumped the fence -- but the story's not quite as good if the convert is on the industry payroll. Jablonski was one of the witnesses at the stacked legislative hearing, but no one mentioned he was on NEI's payroll. He was listed on the hearing agenda as the founder of the Progressive Law Group, his law firm. Nice touch.

He may not like the way I characterized him, but it isn't wrong. He is indeed a registered lobbyist who is paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

I didn't say he was being paid to testify at the hearing. He says he wasn't on the clock, but did that for free. No matter. My point was that he gave pro-nuclear testimony before a legislative committee, made up of those same legislators he is paid to lobby on nuclear issues, without being identified as a lobbyist for the industry. You'd think that was a relevant piece of information.

Jablonski didn't like the term "flip-flop" to describe his change of heart on the issue, and says he changed his mind long before the nuclear industry hired him. I don't question that. I didn't suggest that he changed his mind because someone paid him. He changed his mind first, and then they hired him.

But one reason he was invited to testify at the hearing, and probably one reason the NEI hired him, is the "man bites dog" story. It's no accident that the witnesses invited to speak at the stacked hearing included two "converts" on the issue -- Jablonski and Patrick Moore, an ex-Greenpeace guy who's also seen the nuclear light, and is on the industry payroll as well.

If there is, indeed, a "general scientific consensus" favoring nuclear energy, it will be news to a great many scientists.Searching the Internet for "scientific consensus nuclear energy" produced this, from Jablonski's friends at NEI:

Scientific consensus has long affirmed that the safest method for managing used nuclear fuel is in an engineered repository deep underground.

That is one of the main reasons I oppose expansion of nuclear power. After 50 years of producing highly radioactive waste, we still have no disposal site or plan to keep that deadly material out of the environment and away from humans for the requisite hundreds of thousands, or even a million, years. When we've solved that little problem, I'll be glad to give it another look.