Writing Off Upstate: How Anti-Nuclear Dogma Betrays Working-Class New Yorkers
- Eric Anders
- Jul 18
- 14 min read
The Real Just Transition Starts with Nuclear – A Letter from My Former Home of Upstate New York
Challenging Progressive Anti-Nuclear Myths
I want to share some insights that directly address Earthrise Accord’s unique position in the climate space. Our mission isn’t just to counter disinformation from the fossil fuel lobby – it’s also to challenge the persistent and damaging myths promoted by many legacy environmental organizations, especially about nuclear energy. For over fifty years, a reflexive anti-nuclear dogma in progressive circles has distorted energy policy and undermined climate action. It’s a legacy we can no longer afford if we’re serious about both climate survival and economic justice.
An important article that came across my desk this week – “Atomic Abundance and Its Enemies” by Fred Stafford, published in Jacobin – powerfully illustrates how this anti-nuclear dogma is playing out in New York State. The piece (which I highly recommend) reveals how some of New York’s biggest environmental lobbies are fanatically opposing Governor Kathy Hochul’s push for nuclear power, even as she tries to 1 2
make it a cornerstone of a serious decarbonization strategy . As Stafford puts it, when it comes to nuclear power, these groups seem more interested in “creating bureaucratic procedures they can oversee” than 1
in actually building the clean energy infrastructure we need . This resistance isn’t just about policy – it has real consequences for communities and for the climate. And as someone who grew up in Upstate New York, I can’t help but take this personally.
A Personal Perspective from Upstate New York
I was raised in Cazenovia, just outside Syracuse (proud Cazenovia High Class of 1982), and I’ve seen firsthand how Upstate New York has struggled in the post-industrial era. Once-bustling manufacturing towns were gutted starting in the 1970s as factories like GE, IBM, and Kodak shut down or moved overseas
3
. Today, many working-class communities across Upstate are still searching for a future – for jobs,
investment, and hope. Governor Hochul recognizes this: she’s explicitly framing nuclear-powered reindustrialization as key to delivering that future, including advanced manufacturing projects (like semiconductor fabs) that “need a lot of electricity” – far more than intermittent renewables alone can reliably 4
provide . Hochul put it plainly: “Harnessing the power of the atom is the best way to generate steady zero emission electricity”, promising to show that blue states like New York “can dream big and build big” with an 5
abundance philosophy rooted in public investment .
Yet many legacy environmental groups are fighting her at every step, clinging to an outdated ideological aversion to nuclear power. By opposing nuclear – still the only proven, scalable energy source capable of powering heavy industry and lifting economically depressed regions – these groups are not just turning their backs on science; they’re effectively writing off Upstate New York. They are abandoning the working-class
1
communities that most need clean, abundant, union-powered energy. In practice, it means blocking the very foundation of a “just transition” – the idea that climate policy should uplift workers and frontline communities, not sacrifice them. What does a real just transition look like for Upstate? It looks like good union jobs operating new nuclear plants; reliable, high-capacity energy to attract factories and businesses; and revitalized local economies instead of ghost towns.
When anti-nuclear organizations block these opportunities, whether intentionally or not, they leave Upstate to languish. This stance doesn’t just hurt Upstate New Yorkers; it also undermines the Democratic Party’s ability to win back this crucial region. Economic despair has become fertile ground for right-wing populism in parts of the Rust Belt and Upstate New York. If progressives can’t offer tangible solutions – if they’re seen as prioritizing “virtue signaling” over jobs and growth – they create a political vacuum that demagogues like Donald Trump are eager to fill. The hard truth is that supporting nuclear energy in these communities isn’t just good climate policy; it’s a political imperative for any party serious about reconnecting with the working class.
Renewables, Nuclear, and the Reality of Power
Let’s be clear: wind and solar absolutely have a role to play in our energy mix. But wind and solar alone simply don’t have the power density, reliability, or industrial muscle to sustain manufacturing at scale, let alone drive regional economic revitalization. New York’s experience proves this point. Last year, the three remaining nuclear plants upstate (all built decades ago) produced almost twice as much clean energy as all of New York’s wind turbines and solar panels combined. If Indian Point (the downstate plant closed in 2021) were still running, New York’s nuclear output would have surpassed all the wind and solar in not just New 6
York, but all of New England combined . And unlike those renewables, the nuclear fleet produces electricity around the clock – rain or shine, winter or summer – without needing massive battery farms or 6
grid upgrades that quietly drive up costs . This isn’t to dismiss renewables; it’s to underscore Stafford’s
7
point in Jacobin: “a maximalist fixation on only renewables won’t cut the mustard.”
Pretending that intermittent sources alone can power energy-intensive industry is not just naïve – it’s dangerous. Communities like those in Upstate New York, which have been gutted by decades of industrial decline, need real, heavy-duty energy infrastructure, not symbolic gestures. They need factories that won’t shut down when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. They need the kind of high-energy, high wage economy that abundant electricity makes possible. If progressives fail to offer that – if climate policy becomes more about feeling green than actually delivering results – then we shouldn’t be surprised when frustrated voters turn elsewhere. As the Jacobin article notes, Hochul’s vision of “nuclear-powered industrial manufacturing and generational careers for the working class” is a bold shift in liberal politics – one that 8
should be embraced, not dismissed . The alternative is the status quo: more fossil fuels, more economic stagnation, and more political resentment. In New York, activists have popularized the slogan “build public renewables or burn” (i.e. face climate catastrophe). But as the unions supporting Hochul’s plan
retort, the real choice is “build nuclear or burn more fossil fuels.”
9 10
Unions, Jobs, and the Real Just Transition
One of the most striking aspects of New York’s nuclear debate is the divide between certain environmental nonprofits and the labor movement. The Jacobin piece highlights that industrial unions overwhelmingly 11
support Hochul’s nuclear initiative . This isn’t surprising – unions can see what many activists fail to. A 2
nuclear plant isn’t just a power source; it’s an engine of economic opportunity. Building and operating nuclear plants means thousands of skilled, high-paying, long-term jobs for engineers, construction workers, electricians, pipefitters, technicians, and more. Once running, a nuclear plant employs far more full-time workers per megawatt than any wind or solar farm – and those jobs come with salaries about 50% 10
higher than the renewable industry average . Unlike short-term gig work installing solar panels, nuclear jobs can sustain a family for decades.
The unions also understand that without nuclear, “renewables-only” plans fall apart. If you don’t build the nuclear plant, you’re not going to replace it with some magical 100% wind/solar grid overnight – you’re going to end up burning natural gas or coal to keep the lights on. As the president of the Utility Workers Union of America bluntly put it: absent new nuclear, fossil fuels will rush in to fill the gap, bringing pollution 9
and climate fallout with them . That’s why unions like the IBEW and UWUA have not only endorsed the nuclear plan but actively pushed back against environmental groups who claim to speak for the “public 10 9
interest” while ignoring the needs of workers on the ground . A real just transition means putting those workers in the driver’s seat, not leaving them behind. It means using every tool available – renewables, yes, but also nuclear, energy efficiency, storage, and more – to ensure both emissions reductions and good-paying jobs.
The case of Indian Point, mentioned above, is instructive. When that nuclear plant was forced to shut down in 2021 after pressure from elite environmental groups, what happened? New York lost a quarter of New York City’s power supply overnight, hundreds of union workers lost their jobs, a local community’s tax base was shattered, and the state had to burn more gas and oil to compensate – leading to higher emissions and 12 13
dirtier air . This was celebrated as an environmental victory by some anti-nuclear organizations. In reality, it was a disaster for workers and a setback for climate. We cannot keep repeating these mistakes.
Nuclear Energy Saves Lives (and the Planet)
It may sound extreme to say, but opposition to nuclear energy isn’t just a policy disagreement – it’s a moral issue with life-or-death stakes. For too long, much of the progressive climate movement has been guided by fear of nuclear power rather than facts. We’ve all heard the scary scenarios: meltdowns, radiation, toxic waste lasting millennia. But here’s the reality: the human toll of not using nuclear power is staggeringly high. Every year, roughly 8 million people worldwide die prematurely due to air pollution – and the burning 14 15
of fossil fuels is responsible for the vast majority of that deadly pollution . That’s like wiping out the entire population of New York City every single year. This is the silent, ongoing holocaust that we’ve normalized. When nuclear plants are shut down or never built, what fills the gap? Usually coal, diesel, and gas – meaning more toxic smoke in our lungs.
On the other hand, many of the dire fears about nuclear have never materialized. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, caused on the order of 40 direct deaths (the UN estimates perhaps a few 16
thousand eventual cancer deaths, though even those are hard to distinguish statistically) . Three Mile Island, the emblematic U.S. incident, killed no one. Fukushima – a freak combination of earthquake and tsunami – caused no radiation-linked deaths according to the UN and World Health Organization, though it did uproot many lives. Every death from a nuclear accident is a tragedy, and we must strive for the highest safety standards. But compare nuclear’s record to the deadly tally of fossil fuels: coal kills hundreds of thousands every single year through asthma, heart disease, strokes, and cancer caused by air pollution
17 14
. Even natural gas, often touted as “clean,” kills tens of thousands annually and contributes 18
massively to climate change . That is the real public health emergency. 3
Per unit of electricity generated, nuclear energy is as safe as wind and solar. Don’t take my word for it – take it from the most comprehensive studies of energy safety. They show that nuclear power results in roughly 0.03–0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced, which is actually slightly better than 19
wind (around 0.04 deaths/TWh) and nearly as good as solar (around 0.02 deaths/TWh) . In practical terms, that means nuclear energy has prevented enormous numbers of deaths by displacing fossil fuels. A landmark study by climate scientists James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha calculated that from 1971 to 2009, existing nuclear power worldwide prevented 1.84 million premature deaths that would have resulted 20
from burning fossil fuels instead . 1.8 million lives saved – and that was over a decade ago; today the figure is undoubtedly higher. France alone offers a dramatic example: by aggressively swapping coal and oil for nuclear power over the past 50 years, France has avoided emitting roughly 2 billion metric tons of CO₂ 21 22
– equivalent to about 28 years of France’s current annual emissions . In doing so, France cleaned up its air to a degree almost unparalleled in the industrial world. France’s cleaner electricity is now saving an estimated tens of thousands of lives each year that would have been lost to air pollution. Nuclear power isn’t just a climate solution; it’s one of the greatest public health success stories in modern history.
These numbers are uncomfortable for some activists, because they force a reckoning with long-held assumptions. It feels counterintuitive that something as feared as nuclear reactors actually save lives. But the data speaks clearly. When you factor in the deadly impact of fossil fuels, nuclear energy’s benefits overwhelm its costs – by orders of magnitude. As one French energy expert put it recently, “Contrary to the 22
concerns it sometimes arouses, nuclear risk is quite manageable. The benefits far outweigh the costs.” . Every serious analysis, from the United Nations to MIT, has concluded that to halt climate change without sacrificing our economies, nuclear must be central. In fact, a major MIT study in 2018 warned that trying to meet carbon targets with 100% renewables alone would be exponentially more expensive and likely infeasible – the report bluntly debunked the myth that an all-renewables grid would be straightforward or 23
affordable . The same study affirmed that expanding nuclear power is imperative for an affordable, 24 25
reliable clean-energy future . Yes, we absolutely should build as much solar and wind as we can, and invest in batteries and efficiency – but not at the exclusion of nuclear. Any “green” movement that dogmatically shuns nuclear is inadvertently doing the fossil fuel industry a favor.
Moving Beyond Performative Politics
For too long, much of our climate politics has been performative – more about signaling virtuous intentions than about achieving results. Pledges to go “100% renewable” make for inspiring headlines and fundraising appeals, but without a plan to include firm, always-on power sources, those pledges often crumble in the real world. Meanwhile, working-class communities watch as factories close, bills go up, and promises of “green jobs” fail to materialize at scale. It’s no wonder that trust is eroding. Earthrise Accord exists to tell a different story – one rooted in science, tangible results, and human welfare rather than outdated myths or purity tests. We’re here to say that you can be an environmentalist and pro-nuclear – in fact, if you truly believe in climate justice and saving lives, you must be open to nuclear power. This isn’t a fringe position anymore; it’s increasingly mainstream among scientists and even forward-thinking greens.
Indeed, one of the most hopeful signs is that even some Green parties and environmental activists are rethinking nuclear. In Europe, where Green parties originally rose out of the anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s, we are seeing a historic shift. Perhaps the most striking example is in Finland. In 2022, the Finnish Green Party (Vihreät) became the world’s first Green party to formally abandon its anti-nuclear 26
stance and embrace nuclear energy as crucial for climate action . This pivot was led in part by people like Tea Törmänen – a former anti-nuclear activist who changed her mind in the face of scientific
4
27 28
evidence and helped persuade the party from within . Tea’s journey is chronicled in the documentary “Critical: A Film by Greens for Nuclear Energy,” which I highly recommend. The title of an essay she co authored says it all: “How Finland’s Green Party Chose Nuclear Power.” If that sounds almost unbelievable, consider how far we’ve come – greens in Finland recognized that the climate crisis is so urgent, and the need for energy so great, that even nuclear power had to be part of their environmental vision. They 29
decided that the goal of cutting carbon emissions is more important than the particular means of doing so . In the end, they voted to support new nuclear construction, license extensions for existing plants, and even 30
explore advanced reactors . This was unthinkable for a Green party a decade ago. But it happened, because reality left them no choice.
I mention the Finland story because it shows that change is possible – even among those who once swore they’d never consider nuclear. We at Earthrise Accord are in touch with leaders like Tea Törmänen (in fact, we’ll be inviting her to join our board) because her perspective is invaluable: she’s lived the journey from skepticism to advocacy. And her message resonates globally. In country after country, we see the same dynamic that we see in New York: entrenched anti-nuclear narratives leading to flawed “renewables-only” strategies that simply can’t deliver the energy abundance required for true climate mitigation or economic justice. Whether it’s Upstate New York or alpine Europe, performative policy that ignores real-world engineering and economic constraints ends up hurting real people. It delays the infrastructure buildout, job creation, and emissions cuts we desperately need. In the worst cases, it even increases emissions by forcing reliance on coal and gas (Germany’s experience post-nuclear phaseout being a cautionary tale).
It’s time to move beyond the scientifically naïve, knee-jerk rejection of nuclear that still lingers in parts of the progressive movement. Nobody is saying nuclear power is without challenges – of course it has costs, and requires careful regulation and oversight (as all energy sources do). But we are saying that the costs of not using nuclear are far greater. The climate crisis is an all-hands-on-deck emergency. We need every low carbon tool available, deployed at massive scale, to have any hope of meeting our climate goals while also powering a prosperous and equitable society. That means solar panels and wind turbines, yes – but also nuclear reactors, advanced geothermal, grid storage, and more. It means building things again – big things, like we did in the mid-20th century when public works and bold engineering drove unprecedented economic growth. Governor Hochul’s plan to have New York’s public power authority build new nuclear plants upstate is a vivid example of that kind of thinking, harkening back to FDR’s New Deal ethos of public 31 32
infrastructure for the public good . That’s the kind of vision we need to rekindle.
In closing, I firmly believe that embracing nuclear energy is essential to any genuinely progressive climate strategy – one that is committed not just to abstract ideals, but to tangible improvements in human welfare, environmental quality, and economic fairness. The evidence is undeniable: nuclear energy saves lives, protects the climate, and can empower working-class communities rather than abandon them. To reject these truths in favor of feel-good fantasies is to betray the very people and planet we aim to defend. We owe it to ourselves, to future generations, and to those suffering today on the frontlines of both pollution and poverty to be honest about what works. And nuclear works – safely, cleanly, and reliably – 20 16
on a scale that nothing else currently does .
Earthrise Accord will continue to advance this conversation, even if it ruffles some feathers in establishment environmental circles. Because this is bigger than any one ideology or organization – it’s about building the true just transition our communities deserve. The path to that transition runs through facts, not fears; through solidarity with workers, not technocratic maneuvers; and through an unwavering focus on solutions that actually solve the problem. Nuclear power is not the only solution, but it is an indispensable
5
part of the solution. Writing off Upstate (or anywhere else) is not an option. It’s time to write a new chapter – one of atomic abundance for the common good, rather than scarcity and decline.
Let’s get to work.
– [Your Name], Founder and Executive Director, Earthrise Accord
Author’s Note: For further reading, see Fred Stafford’s excellent Jacobin article “Atomic Abundance and Its Enemies”, which inspired this post, and other pieces we’ve published on the Earthrise Accord Pink Hydrogen Blog – for example, our analysis of Switzerland’s energy dilemma (“What Swiss Energy Surveys Won’t Tell You”) and our open letter to Bill McKibben (“Dear Bill McKibben: Earthrise, Climate Truth, and the Nuclear Gap”). And if you’re interested in the changing green perspective on nuclear, check out the documentary Critical: A Film by Greens for
1
Nuclear Energy. As always, I welcome thoughtful discussion and dissent – the only taboo is misinformation. 11
Sources:
1. 1 11
Stafford, Fred. Atomic Abundance and Its Enemies. Jacobin, July 16, 2025 .
2. 33 Petracca, Lauren (Photo). Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Bloomberg/Getty via Jacobin) .
3.
Kharecha, P. & Hansen, J. “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical Nuclear 20 17
Power.” Environmental Science & Technology, 2013 (via Columbia Climate School) .
4. 19 Our World in Data. “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” 2022 .
5.
Institut Économique Molinari. “France’s nuclear power has prevented 28 times 2023’s CO2 emissions.” 21 22
Press release, March 6, 2025 .
6.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health – C-CHANGE. “Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 14
deaths worldwide.” Feb 9, 2021 .
7. 16 Breakthrough Institute (Ashutosh Jogalekar). “Nuclear Saved 1.8 Million Lives.” April 11, 2013 .
8.
Palladium Magazine (Törmänen & Visscher). “How Finland’s Green Party Chose Nuclear Power.” Oct 28, 26
2022 .
9.
Nuclear Energy Institute. MIT Energy Initiative Study on The Future of Nuclear Energy (Press Release). Sep 23
4, 2018 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 31 32 33
Atomic Abundance and Its Enemies
14 15 Health
Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
16
Nuclear Saved 1.8 Million Lives | The Breakthrough Institute
17 18 20
Fossil Fuels Do Far More Harm Than Nuclear Power – State of the Planet
19
What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? - Our World in Data
21 22
Since its inception 47 years ago, France’s nuclear power has prevented 28 times 2023’s total CO2
emissions - Institut économique Molinari
https://www.institutmolinari.org/2025/03/06/since-its-inception-47-years-ago-frances-nuclear-power-has-prevented-28- times-2023s-total-co2-emissions/
23 24 25
MIT Study Finds Nuclear Energy Imperative for an Affordable, Clean Energy Future
26 27 28 29 30
How Finland’s Green Party Chose Nuclear Power
Comments