Dr. Arjun Makhijani is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. This article appeared in the IEER’s newsletter, Science for Democratic Action, in June 2003. Dr. Makhijani is author ofFrom Global Capitalism to Economic Justice (New York: Apex Press). He can be reached at ieer@ieer.org.
.Topics
.Connections
- .anti-Imperialist Imperialism And The Struggle For Freedom
- .Carbon emmissions: advocates zero carbon emissions
- .Counterpunch
- .Democracy Now
- .Helen Caldicott
- .India should make energy deal with Iran, not USA
- .Iran is better partner for energy than USA for India
- .No Lies Radio
.Democracy Now
Energy Host Daphne Wysham interviews Dr. Helen Caldicott about the influences exerted by the nuclear power industry. Then Brad Plumer of New Republic moderates a debate at the National Press Club between Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Dr Patrick Moore, co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition about the safety, cost and feasibility of nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis.
.Books
Recensisci per primo questo articolo
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policyby Arjun Makhijani, Helen Caldicott and S. David Freeman (Jun 1, 2007)
(6)
| Formats | Price | New | Used | Collectible | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PaperbackOrder in the next 5 hours to get it by Friday, Oct 18.
Eligible for FREESuper Saver Shipping.
| $16.16 | $5.88 | $0.01 | $0.99 |
The Nuclear Power Deception: US nuclear mythology from electricity "too cheap to meter" to "inherently safe" reactors... by Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska (May 15, 1999)
(2)
| Formats | Price | New | Used | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PaperbackOrder in the next 5 hours to get it by Friday, Oct 18.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
| $13.30 | $13.30 | $8.91 |
Manifesto for Global Democracy: Two Essays On Imperialism And The Struggle For Freedom by Arjun Makhijani (Jul 1, 2003)
| Formats | Price | New | Used | Collectible | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PaperbackOrder in the next 26 minutes to get it by Friday, Oct 18.
Eligible for FREESuper Saver Shipping.
| $20.85 | $14.95 | $1.16 | $9.77 | ||
| HardcoverOrder in the next 5 hours to get it by Friday, Oct 18.
Eligible for FREESuper Saver Shipping.
| $34.95 |
From Global Capitalism to Economic Justice: An Inquiry into the Elimination of Systemic Poverty, Violence and... by Arjun Makhijani(Mar 1992)
High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense: A Critique of Present Policy for the Management of Long-Lived Radioactive... by Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska (Jan 1992)
Mending the Ozone Hole: Science, Technology, and Policy by Arjun Makhijani and Kevin Gurney (Sep 5, 1995)
| Formats | Price | New | Used | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HardcoverUsually ships in 1 to 3 weeks
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
| $46.70 | $1.89 | $0.50 | ||
| PaperbackUsually ships in 1 to 3 weeks
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
| $25.67 | $25.67 |
Other Formats: Hardcover
.Carbon emmissions advocates zero carbon emissions
Arjun Makhijani
Mark Selden conducted this Japan Focus interview with Arjun Makhijani on August 10, 2007. Makhijani explains his program for transforming US energy use, sets the issues in international context, and discusses what it will take to halt global warming.
Why zero carbon emissions? Not even the boldest proposals have called for zero emissions, even defined as you do as a few percentage points of CO2 emissions on either side of zero. We understand the necessity to sharply reduce carbon emissions to safe limits and to reverse the carbon excess in the environment. Still, why zero emissions? Is this simply a means to draw attention to the problem where substantial reductions rather than zero emissions would solve the multiple problems associated with the present profligate fossil fuel and other nonrenewable energy consumption? Does the demand for zero emissions not risk alienating potential support for a feasible program of sharp reductions?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requires the burden of reductions to be borne with present and past inequities taken into account. At the very least, this will mean that any CO2 emissions that are allowed would be allocated on a per person basis. - See more at: http://japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/2496#sthash.9ynif2B5.dpuf
Mark Selden conducted this Japan Focus interview with Arjun Makhijani on August 10, 2007. Makhijani explains his program for transforming US energy use, sets the issues in international context, and discusses what it will take to halt global warming.
Why zero carbon emissions? Not even the boldest proposals have called for zero emissions, even defined as you do as a few percentage points of CO2 emissions on either side of zero. We understand the necessity to sharply reduce carbon emissions to safe limits and to reverse the carbon excess in the environment. Still, why zero emissions? Is this simply a means to draw attention to the problem where substantial reductions rather than zero emissions would solve the multiple problems associated with the present profligate fossil fuel and other nonrenewable energy consumption? Does the demand for zero emissions not risk alienating potential support for a feasible program of sharp reductions?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requires the burden of reductions to be borne with present and past inequities taken into account. At the very least, this will mean that any CO2 emissions that are allowed would be allocated on a per person basis. - See more at: http://japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/2496#sthash.9ynif2B5.dpuf
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that if temperature rise by mid-century is to be limited to less than 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius, it will be necessary to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50 to 85 percent. - See more at: http://japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/2496#sthash.9ynif2B5.dpuf
The other reason to actually go to 100 percent elimination is that climate change is shaping up to be more severe than estimated by models. We may have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that has already been emitted to try to mitigate the severity. It makes no sense to remove CO2 at great expense while emitting more. - See more at: http://japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/2496#sthash.9ynif2B5.dpuf
.Iran
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal and Iran (Interview with Arjun ...
ieer.org › Commentary
The Rediff Interview/Dr Arjun Makhijani [1] India should choose Iran, not US. December 28, 2005. Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and ...
India should choose Iran, not US - Rediff.com - India, Business ...
Online NewsHour: Analysis | U.S.-India Nuke Pact Threatened ...
The US / India Nuclear Pact » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts ...
Iran did not make weapons usable material, so far as is known, while North Korea did and withdrew from the NPT. ... ARJUN MAKHIJANI, Ph.D., ...
MARCH 4-6, 2006
A Bad and Dangerous Deal
The US / India Nuclear Pact
The U.S.-India nuclear deal is not good for either country. It could also create problems in other areas of the world.
United States
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal is the latest in a series of U.S. actions in the past few years that undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). First it was an attack on Article VI of the NPT, on disarmament: The United States Senate rejected ratification of the test ban treaty and the Bush administration has rejected it altogether (though a test moratorium continues). The United States has also renounced obligations that it and other nuclear weapons states made to non-nuclear parties at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.
Now, with India and Iran in different ways, it is NPT,s Article IV that is being cast aside. Iran, a party to the NPT unlike India, is being asked to permanently forgo its "inalienable right" to nuclear energy under Article IV, despite the fact that its violations were not nearly as severe as North Korea. Iran did not make weapons usable material, so far as is known, while North Korea did and withdrew from the NPT. It is unclear how the United States will now deal with demands for nuclear energy and even reprocessing from countries like Egypt or Morocco. Venezuela has announced its desire for nuclear energy.
United States
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal is the latest in a series of U.S. actions in the past few years that undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). First it was an attack on Article VI of the NPT, on disarmament: The United States Senate rejected ratification of the test ban treaty and the Bush administration has rejected it altogether (though a test moratorium continues). The United States has also renounced obligations that it and other nuclear weapons states made to non-nuclear parties at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.
Now, with India and Iran in different ways, it is NPT,s Article IV that is being cast aside. Iran, a party to the NPT unlike India, is being asked to permanently forgo its "inalienable right" to nuclear energy under Article IV, despite the fact that its violations were not nearly as severe as North Korea. Iran did not make weapons usable material, so far as is known, while North Korea did and withdrew from the NPT. It is unclear how the United States will now deal with demands for nuclear energy and even reprocessing from countries like Egypt or Morocco. Venezuela has announced its desire for nuclear energy.
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Iran, and India's Future :: JapanFocus
Arjun Makhijani (Open Library)
Why India Should Choose Iran, Not the US » CounterPunch: Tells ...
Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and one of the leading technical nuclear experts in the United States, believes ..
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
An Interview with Arjun Makhijani
Why India Should Choose Iran, Not the US
Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and one of the leading technical nuclear experts in the United States, believes that even if India gets everything it wants under the US-India civilian nuclear agreement signed by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18, it would still be only a tiny fraction of the oil and gas it could obtain from Iran to meet India’s growing energy needs.
It is not, Dr Makhijani argues, therefore worth jeopardizing India’s relationship with Iran by voting with the United States against Tehran at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Dr Makhijani, a PhD specialising in nuclear fusion, has since 2004 served as one of the principal members of a team providing technical support to the President-appointed Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. He has also served on the Radiation Advisory Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency from 1992 to 1994 as well as several other scientific advisory committees.
He has authored, solo or as part of a collaborative effort, numerous reports and books on energy and environmental issues. He was principal author of the first study of the energy efficiency potential of the US economy published in 1972, and principal editor of Nuclear Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and Its Health and Environmental Effects, published by MIT Press in July 1995, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize by MIT Press.
He has also on numerous occasions testified before the US Congress, and has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, National Public Radio, CNN, BBC, C-SPAN, and CBC.
AH: You and your organisation have done extensive technical research on nuclear energy and civilian nuclear reactors. What is your take on the US-India civilian nuclear agreement?
AM: First of all, it is not as yet an agreement, since there will be many obstacles in the US Congress as you know. Secondly, even if it is approved by Congress, it is not going to make a material difference to India’s electricity scene.
If you look at India’s electricity goals, which is 20,000 megawatts by 2020, the whole of the nuclear energy sector will at best contribute 10 to 12 percent of the total requirement even if everything goes as planned.
For this, India seems to be giving up, or at least jeopardising, a much larger and more sure source of energy, one that could provide electricity more competitively than nuclear, which is natural gas from Iran. So it (the US-India nuclear deal) does not look like a very good deal, even just on economic terms, never mind the other political or strategic considerations.
You said nuclear energy will by 2020 fill maybe about 12 percent of India’s energy needs. Currently, the nuclear component contributes three percent.
It is about three percent now, (but) in fairness, in the first few decades, India’s nuclear energy sector had many serious problems leading to chronic underperformance and high cost. In the last few years, the performance of the nuclear energy sector has considerably improved. But it still remains — for the effort, economic as well as political that has been put into it — a very low figure. The damage from under-performing nuclear plants in the electricity sector has not been properly assessed in India.
AH: Can you give me concrete examples of under-performing nuclear power plants?
AM: For example, the Rajasthan nuclear power plants, which were chronically under-performing in the 1980s and 1990s, were in the context of the electricity sector overall, quite weak. And so when you have important power plants that go down or offline most of the time or much of the time, what happens is that it has a disproportionate impact on industry.
It’s not like a light going off in the house when the electricity goes out, and when it comes back on the light just comes on. These plants have to be started up very carefully, and with a certain procedure that is very costly and lengthy. So the impact of an under-performing and unreliable nuclear energy sector on Indian industry has been very significant.
The most important thing in the electricity sector in India is not the cost of electricity — it’s the unreliability of electricity. And, the fact that power is unreliable in India is one of the reasons that China gets a lot more investment despite higher costs. If you look at where corporations invest abroad, they don’t invest in the cheapest labour places or even necessarily in places where they have more skilled labor, they invest in places where they can surely perform their jobs.
That is why Indian software is not a very big deal — they can invest there because the performance of the software sector does not depend that much on large scale electricity supply. You can have emergency generators; it’s not costly to do that. But the performance of a heavy industrial sector does depend on large scale supply of electricity. So it’s very damaging to have the kind of lackadaisical approach to electricity that we have in India.
AH: But isn’t this an argument that the Indian government itself is making, that it has to get the power sector going if the economic growth rates are to be maintained? And that in order to do that, addressing the acute energy needs is imperative and one way of doing it is to generate nuclear energy?
AM: The power sector is much more than a set of generating plants. You have to look at the whole sector. The sector has four different pieces in it. It has a generating side of course, without which there is nothing — you have to have generation. But it doesn’t have to be all centralised generation.
Some of it can be medium-scale and some of it can be small-scale, and it has to be connected together in a sensible way. The second thing is the transmission infrastructure.
The third thing is the distribution infrastructure, and the fourth thing is the consuming equipment — and they are all integral to the power sector.
I’ll give you an example. I was part of the US Presidential Energy Mission to India in 1994, as an adviser, because I know the Indian energy sector as well as the US energy sector. I had no business interests. I was just invited, and I saw the Enron project as a looming disaster even at the time. But of course, who was listening?
I visited power plants of the National Thermo Power Corporation of India at the time and was quite impressed by how well it was run, except one thing — and it was not a problem in the power plant. It was a problem in the power sector. I noticed that something called the power factor was very low, which means that you are not using your generating capacity very well.
You get a low power factor if your transmission and distribution infrastructure is weak and more importantly, if your consuming equipment is of poor quality, specially your fluorescent lamps and your electricity motors.
So I pointed out that improving power can be done relatively cheaply and easily, and instead of rushing to import more generation at very high prices from contractors like Enron, why not first improve the power factor and increase India’s effective generating capacity by 5 percent — for a couple of hundred dollars a kilowatt, instead of a couple of thousand dollars a kilowatt, which is what nuclear energy will cost. But no one was interested.
It’s much more sexy and attractive to invite foreigners to build power plants than it is to do it with domestic resources that are easily available within India’s own infrastructure. By the way, I also found that the National Thermo Power Corporation was doing a great job, and I did not see why India necessarily needed to import so much equipment when there is so much domestic industrial capacity — Bharat Heavy Electricals — and the capacity to build power plants in the National Thermo Power Corporation.
I was very impressed with the laboratory as well as the industrial infrastructure in India, but it is not used well.
AH: So what are you suggesting in lieu of nuclear reactors?
AM: If there were standards for electric motors in terms of their performance, if there were standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts — if we attended to the power factor, then we would be in a better position. The other thing is, we have large transmission and distribution losses. Some of it is theft, but I think less of it is theft — theft has also become a convenient excuse for bureaucrats. I believe a lot of it is the poor infrastructure.
Because of unreliable electricity, a lot of people buy their own generator sets. This is very, very wasteful of capital. The local generation should be tied up to the grid and if that is done, our transmission and distribution losses would go down quite a bit. So India must adopt a grid approach, and Western countries will move there eventually.
It is very costly to do it here because the infrastructure is so big here. So instead of importing larger and larger power plants — nuclear power plants, which are the largest of all power plants, which puts a strain on the transmission infrastructure — India would do well to have 100 and 200 megawatt natural gas-fired power plants which would strengthen the infrastructure and reliability, apart from cost considerations.
.Iraq
The Shah of Iran was the United States' chosen guardian of this new Fort Knox; he proved to be a shaky one. With no possibility of countering the Shah's repression of dissent but in the mosques, the Iranian people angrily overthrew the Shah in 1979, in an Islamic revolution directed as much against the United States as against him.
The terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 raised the insecurity of the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to new levels. Saudi Arabia continued funding and supporting the Taliban, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden, who, like Saddam Hussein, was a U.S. ally in the 1980s. Also in the year 1998, the introduction of the euro became a certainty.
The U.S. determination to occupy Iraq may have three main goals related to the control of oil:
- To control physically the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world — 112.5 billion barrels of proven reserves, and 220 billion barrels in all of probable and possible reserves — in view of the increasing opposition to the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.
- To establish a long-term military presence in the Persian Gulf region so as to control the principal external source of oil supplies for Western Europe and China (which became an oil importer in the 1990s). This would fit into the U.S. goal of preventing either of them from emerging as global rivals, first suggested in a Pentagon draft document under the first President Bush, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense.
- To ensure, by physical occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world and by a military presence in the Persian Gulf region that could enable rapid occupation of Saudi oil fields, that the price of oil would remain denominated in dollars. In other words, one United States goal may be to become a central player in OPEC by controlling Iraq either directly or through a regime that is pliant on the question of oil pricing policy, whatever its other political attributes might be....
The U.S. occupation of Iraq may provide a temporary reprieve for the dollar because the United States can exercise pressure on OPEC for continued pricing of oil in dollars. That may enable the United States to continue printing money, running up trade deficits, and foreign debts to some extent.
The naming of Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and the war on Iraq has likely strengthened the pro-nuclear-weapons lobby in Iran. A similar strengthening of the pro-nuclear lobby in India occurred when the United States sent a nuclear-armed aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal in a "tilt" toward Pakistan during the Pakistan-India-Bangladesh war in 1971.
US Monetary Imperialism and the War on Iraq
ARJUN MAKHIJANI The Black Commentator 15jan04
The following article, written in late April 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, remains a valuable guide to the underlying causes of the current American offensive against world order. Dr. Makhijani is one of many voices, seldom heard in American media, calling for broad discussion of the new arrangements that are necessary to ensure “a more just world.”
"No war for oil" was one of the more common slogans of the anti-war movement in the months before the Bush administration launched its war on Iraq on March 20, 2003. Oil is a many-faceted thing, however, and one aspect of it — the oil pricing policy of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — has not had much exposure to the light of public discussion, though it can be found in the interstices of cyberspace, if one looks hard enough.
Military dominance is not enough to establish imperialist control and economic dominance. A monetary and financial system that goes with military control is necessary for that. In fact, the degree and geographic extent of the acceptance of the money of an imperialist state are a good indication of how far its writ extends. Not too many people outside the Soviet Union particularly wanted to hold rubles, so the economic power of the Soviet Union was weak even over Eastern Europe, which it controlled militarily and politically. That was one of the central differences between the Soviet Union and the United States at the end of World War II.
Despite all appearances, and despite the overwhelming military might of the United States, the position of the U.S. dollar in the world is precarious. Trying to preserve the monetary basis of unchallenged U.S. imperialism may have been one of the central reasons for the United States to want to conquer Iraq and to dominate its oilfields. To understand the basis for that statement, a brief history of the evolution post-World War II monetary order is essential.
In 1945, all major powers, victors and vanquished alike, except the United States, were in various states of destruction and debt. They were exhausted by war and in need of external assistance to rebuild. Britain and France were also under pressure from independence movements in the colonies. Only the United States came out of the war richer and stronger. It possessed a monopoly of nuclear weapons. It was the world's largest creditor and had half the world's economic output. It exported both oil and capital. It had three-quarters of all the central bank gold in the world.
Looking to the post-war world, the major capitalist powers among the Allies agreed, during a 1944 conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to a U.S. plan to make the U.S. dollar the anchor of the world's post-war monetary system. The basis of this plan was that U.S. dollars would be, literally, as good as gold. The United States promised to exchange them at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce of gold. The promise was based on a large store of gold at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the immense financial strength of the United States. In return, the United States got the right to print the global reserve money. The world was willing to hold dollars because they represented gold at a constant price and because they were issued by the world's wealthiest and most powerful country.
As Western Europe rose from the ashes of war, with U.S. capital and a copious supply of nearly free Middle Eastern oil (relative to final price) in the two decades after 1945, the currencies of European countries regained local stability. At about the same time, in 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that led to a large-scale war in Vietnam. President Johnson's "guns and butter" policy during that war set off serious global inflation — because inflation in the U.S. currency also created inflation in global prices. This und
.Surname - India, pakistan,
Others
Sheila Makhijani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sheila Makhijani (b. 1962) is a New Delhi based artist.
Aakash Makhijani - Pakistan | LinkedIn
- Telecommunications ·
- 4 recommendations ·
- 500+ connections ·
- Pakistan
View Aakash Makhijani's (Pakistan) professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Aakash Makhijani ...
.Wikipedia
Arjun Makhijani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arjun Makhijani is an electrical and nuclear engineer who is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Makhijani has written many books and reports analyzing the safety, economics, and efficiency of various energy sources. He has testified before Congress and has served as an expert witness in Nuclear Regulatory Commissionproceedings.
Contents
[hide]Professional experience[edit]
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2011) |
Arjun Makhijani is an electrical and nuclear engineer with 37 years experience in energy and nuclear issues. He is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. IEER has been doing nuclear-related studies for twenty years and is an independent non-profit organization located in Takoma Park, Maryland. Makhijani has a Ph.D. (Engineering), from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences of the University of California, Berkeley, where he specialized in the application of plasma physics to controlled nuclear fusion.[1]
Makhijani has extensive professional experience and is qualified in radioactive waste disposal, standards for protection of human health from radiation, and the relative costs and benefits of nuclear energy and other energy sources. He has testified before Congress and has served as a consultant on energy issues to utilities and other organizations, including theTennessee Valley Authority, the Lower Colorado River Authority, the Edison Electric Institute, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and several agencies of the United Nations. He has also served as an expert witness in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings on nuclear facilities and in numerous lawsuits and has testified on a variety of issues including releases of radioactivity from nuclear facilities. He has testified before Congress on several occasions regarding issues related to nuclear waste, reprocessing, environmental releases of radioactivity, and regulation of nuclear weapons plants.
Makhijani has studied the French reprocessing and nuclear energy system and was the director of a team that analyzed ANDRA’s plans for a geological repository for high level radioactive waste in France on behalf of a French government-sponsored stakeholder committee (2004).
Publications[edit]
Arjun Makhijani has written a number of books and other publications analyzing the safety, economics, and efficiency of various energy sources, including nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar energy. He was the principal author of the first evaluation of energy end-uses and energy efficiency potential in the U.S. economy (published by the Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley in 1971). He was also the principal author of the first overview study on Energy and Agriculture in the Third World[2] (Ballinger 1975). He was one of the principal technical staff of the Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project, and a co-author of its final report, A Time to Choose,[3] which helped shape U.S. energy policy during the mid-to-late 1970s. He is a co-author of Investment Planning in the Electricity Sector, published by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in 1976. He is also the principal author of Nuclear Power Deception[4] (Apex Books 1999), an analysis of the costs of nuclear power in the United States and a co-author and principal editor of the first global assessment of the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons production (Nuclear Wastelands,[5] 1995 and 2000), which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize by MIT Press. Most recently, Makhijani has authored Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free[6] (RDR Books and IEER Press 2007), the first analysis of a transition to a U.S. economy based completely on renewable energy, without any use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. He has many published articles in journals such as The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and The Progressive, as well as in newspapers, including the Washington Post. Arjun Makhijani has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, 60 Minutes, NPR, CNN, and BBC, among others.[7]
Awards[edit]
In 1989, Dr Makhijani received The John Bartlow Martin Award for Public Interest Magazine Journalism[8] of the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, with Robert Alvarez; was awarded the Josephine Butler Nuclear Free Future Award in 2001;[9] the 2007/2008 Jane Bagley Lehman Award for Excellence in Public Advocacy[10] by the Tides Foundation; and was named a Ploughshares Hero, by the Ploughshares Fund (2006). In 2007, he was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society.[7]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ IEER Program Staff Profiles
- ^ "Energy and Agriculture in the Third World"
- ^ "A Time to Choose"
- ^ "Nuclear Power Deception"
- ^ "Nuclear Wastelands"
- ^ “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free”
- ^ a b Short Biography of Arjun Makhijani
- ^ John Bartlow Martin Award
- ^ DC Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Committee
- ^ 2007/2008 JBL Award
No comments:
Post a Comment