77 comments on A Convenient Solution to An Inconvenient Truth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
This initiative will be supported by the powerful tourism industry if approached in the right way.
Oh, and would the powerful tourism industry be interested in my proposal to build a streetcar line on Grand Street. It's close enough to Canal street, falls neatly on the south of Soho and the north of Chinatown, and goes to the subway-less lower east side.
Amtrak goes to Portland now, but only with a broken link in Boston where you have to take a 'T' from North to South Stations. Didn't make sense with a week's worth of baby-stuff and food in Tow.
I'm with Vonnegut: Too little, much too late...
Absolutely. There's no joy in saying it -- but c'mon. This peppy "let's save the world by driving higher mileage Japanese sedans!" garbage is just totally detached from reality.
If there is hope, it with massive near-term changes in our societies, not incremental measures. For instance, James Lovelock says climate change is already going to be catastrophic and will make the world at tropical and subtropical latitudes uninhabitable. That's done. The best we can do now is mitigate to make the planet a little bit more survivable in the future. He suggests massive construction projects for nuclear plants. I think it's an extremely good plan.
"Environmental" opposition to it is wrong-headed and deluded. Read a bit about the Amazon and its ongoing two-year drought that threatens the forest's existance and the Great Plains beginning to revert to dustbowl conditions.
The effect of a nuclear accident palls in comparison.
Lovelock is giving the straight dope. The way society works, it's very tough for a public figure to say, simply, "We're f*cked." He does this. You might not agree entirely with his calculus, but most of the evidence seems to point to the fact that his perspective is the one to be taken more seriously.
If we're going to demand any action it needs to be serious -- not worthless feel-good stuff.
Just a tad bit more info on my rant -- I tend to believe that the climate models we're using are conservative in taking to account positive feedback loops (melting bogs, and so on), and so are quite possibly (and being conservative we must then plan for the worst) underestimating the effects of global warming and related effects like ocean acidification.
This is a very good intro to Lovelock and his ideas though -- plenty of criticism:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=256
How about in conjunction? This is like the argument about fighting them there so you don't have to fight them here. The way we've gone about it, we have every likelihood of getting both a climate collapse and some fine nuclear disasters. As if we don't have enough crap in our environment with Lead, Mercury, PCBs, Dioxin etc, to insist on the 'Safe and Right-headed' build out of a massive nuclear program, with a waste stream that we don't have any outlet for.
To me, this rosy promise of great, safe Nuclear power everywhere is the 'Worthless Feel-Good' argument, the cornucopian dream that another overly wieldy, complex and monopolistic power-structure is going to keep us flush with kilowatts, with no concievable downside.
Sorry, but just cause all the other 'solutions' aren't good enough either, doesn't mean this one is. It's wrong for too many reasons, and I don't think it could live up to the promise to solve our dilemma even if it was not so flawed otherwise..
Produce your own power, learn how to live with WAY less. Try to feel good.. stress will make you sick.
Bob Fiske
He's afraid of global collapse, but he's more worried about saving the view??
He dismisses solar as too expensive, with no analysis at all.
Careful reading of the book indicates to me that, despite the other reasons he gives, he really objects to wind turbines on esthetic grounds. This can only be described as bizarre given the scope of the threat he describes.
If he were to say that the magnitude of the threat meant that we needed all solutions (wind, solar and nuclear), I would understand that completely. I think it's possible that would be an appropriate proposal, though I'm not so enthusiastic about nuclear.
So, yes, I think this contradiction hurts his credibility. He seems to be willing to allow wishful thinking to override a sensible analysis of the situation.
Like I often say, some people are choosing to live in the real world. At the moment you convince me that this slogan will be voluntary and actively accepted and implemented by the majority of the humanity (as opposed to some 0.001% as of now) I will give up my support for nuclear power.
In the meantime all opposition to nuclear power represents nothing else than a promotion of coal, period.
As far as 'The Real World', we all live in it, complete with the many constructions that let our minds organize and understand it in one way or another. But to get too certain that your solution is the "Real" one lacks humility.
I don't see either Nuclear or Coal as safe enough, clean enough or reliable enough to advocate, and I am working to get around both of them, as soon as I can.
Still, they are part of the current picture, like oil and gas, and I will be using their energies to move us in a direction away from them.
I voted for Nader. That was in no way a vote for Bush, even if it gets painted that way. To tar the greens is the most easy and unproductive way of opposing coal.
I can do nothing but quote Eskribage:
"you can't oppose both nuclear and coal and still claim to live in anything but a dream world"
The biggest delusion by so-called enviromentalists is that by opposing both energy sources they will make the big business and the big money go to renewables. In the real world, the money goes to where it is mostly secure and will achieve greatest ROI. Now that it does not go to nuclear because the opposition is too high (which makes it insecure) of course it will go to coal, because it offers the greatest ROI from alternatives. In the real world coal opposition is limited to the enviromental groups. There is no such thing as "coal paranoya" as opposed to the radiation paranoia which is very successfully induced and kept by the media and the enviromental groups. In the real world the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc. did the coal plant 10 miles from their house release this year. So please, give me a break. Do not overestimate your power and try to learn what politics is all about.
Citing one of your peers in looniness does not an argument make.
the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc.
Of course, THIS is what has to be tackled, because BOTH coal and nuclear are lethal.
NOT if it goes along with an EQUALLY STRONG opposition to coal.
And fine -- I totally support strong opposition to coal. 100%. But you can't oppose both nuclear and coal and still claim to live in anything but a dream world.
I'm sorry, it would be lovely if we could run bulldozers and smelt metal and so on with wind and solar. But you're deeply deluded if you think that's possible.
For the record, I think there should be massive spending on windfarms and solar farms all over the world. Put 'em up everywhere. But that isn't going to be enough.
The opposition of otherwise intelligent people to nuclear power on a large scale is terribly frustrating. It's raw dogmatism.
We have a models that show that it can work very well. France, to name one.
But here's the real rub. That opposition shows a deeply flawed ability for sorting threats according to their significance. Sure, who wants the possibility of a nuclear accident? And who wants the possibility of a leaking containment site or whatever. We often here this "it will be dangerous for 10,000 yrs" stuff.
But, kid, radition leaking in 10,000 years or 2,000 years or 500 years, aint our problem right now. By analogy, it's like you're in a car hydroplaning toward a brick wall and you're worried about spilling your coffee on the upholstery.
Look, we've had Chernobyl. We've done atmospheric H-bomb tests. There have been some adverse consequences, but they've been marginal. Mortality from Chernobyl has, in fact, been much much lower than was first predicited. It has basically killed about as many people as one of those nasty coal mining accidents that happen every so often in China and Russia. So, yes, if we do a serious build-out of nuclear plants, there will probably be some increased cancer mortality associated with it. But it will generally afflict people in old age. Statisitically more people will die of cancer at 78 instead of heart attacks at 80. That's a bit broad, but not wholly inaccurate in characterizing the threat.
In any case, that's much better than the alternatives. Namely, making the climate situation worse than it already is; or, pretending that we can get through the energy crunch w/o making some very uncomfortable choices.
Try to be realistic.
I know, I am from France.
This only buys us a temporary reprieve, doesn't solve anything long term.
I wish more money had been put into solar which we started investigating long ago.
By analogy, it's like you're in a car hydroplaning toward a brick wall and you're worried about spilling your coffee on the upholstery.
Coffee isn't as TOXIC as radioactive waste, as far as I know.
Mortality from Chernobyl has, in fact, been much much lower than was first predicited
No, it has been higher.
Still, the MAIN POINT ABOUT NUCLEAR RISK, above "know" problems in current operations protocols, is that we cannot guarantee that the REQUIRED LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY can be maintained over a "few thousand years", this is a deadly "gift" to future generations.
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
pretending that we can get through the energy crunch w/o making some very uncomfortable choices.
I am not pretending that, I am IN FAVOR of "very uncomfortable choices", namely POWERDOWN!
Try to be realistic.
I am, would you?
It will last only up to the first major accident, even if not so immediately lethal (a few thousands deaths), a Chernobyl in California or the like.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Basicaly uranium is in the position of oil in the late 19 century. People then also thought they had some several years of oil left.
Fine, let it be so, but I'd be very curious to see anyone of these guys smelting silicon or assembling wind turines in the toolsheds of those "eco-communities" they dream about.
I noticed.
Even more so when they are PAID for spreading denial and confusion.
(does not necessarily applies to you...)
You didn't reply to my essential point.
I agree that nuclear is a less than ideal option. It produces toxis waste. Containment might be problem while the waste is still radioactive.
If there is an accident (but keep in mind there's been one serious accident in 50+ year worldwide record of nuclear power generation, and technology is better now) there will be fatalities, possibly tens of thousands. There are problems with terrorism.
Yes, yes, yes.
But the point is: all that is much better than the situation we face in climate change.
Quite literally it and PO threaten human human civilization, and (in the case of climate change) the existence of a majority of species on earth.
THESE ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAN ANY OF THE PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR.
That is why nuclear makes sense.
Or I guess you support coal. Which is far more dangerous to life on earth than the any of the (substantial) problems with nuclear.
Please respond to this essential argument, not side points. In this thread there is no response to that fundamental point: We are in a hideous jam and we can't pretend otherwise; nuclear kinda sucks as an option -- but we have to stem greenhouse gas emissions
This is such a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. It kind of turns my stomach. In terms of intellectual coherence, about on a par with Lovelock reject wind farms because he finds them ugly.
Liberals don't care for nuclear in any form (except maybe medicine). Therefore even if nuclear is one of the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization, it is still wrong. Why is it wrong? 'Cuz we don't like it.
Boggles the mind. This is reflective of why humanity is screwed. Hopefully brighter minds will prevail in this argument.
What we should do: suspend all local, state, and national laws and rights to sue, design a national plan and begin building an alternative (including nuclear) energy infrastructure with the speed and dedication that are only possible in centralized wartime economy. It is literally our only hope, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
Which? This?
I'm sorry, it would be lovely if we could run bulldozers and smelt metal and so on with wind and solar. But you're deeply deluded if you think that's possible.
I am not deluded, ONLY A SMALL FRACTION of what is done today as "run[ning] bulldozers and smelt[ing] metal" can be done with wind and solar, yet it CAN.
THIS IS THE POINT.
There WILL BE a powerdown, whether you like it or not and I don't like it either except for the decreased impact on the environment.
So, the realistic approach is to sort out the essential uses of metals and bulldozers and skip current idiotic practices like planned obsolescence and huge amounts of throw away stuff.
If there is an accident (but keep in mind there's been one serious accident in 50+ year worldwide record of nuclear power generation, and technology is better now) there will be fatalities, possibly tens of thousands.
How MANY MORE nuclear plants will be needed to sustain the current levels of energy consumption?
If "technology is better now", by which factor security wise?
Does this cancel the increase in the number of risky plants?
Anyway security is NOT MUCH a matter of technology but a matter of human error and (un)awareness, there has NOT BEEN ANY IMPROVEMENT here and there will not be, ever.
Even the lousy technology of Chernobyl would have been doing fine is not for human error.
Quoting a previous TOD comment.
'Swedish nuclear expert Lars-Olov Högland, who served as chief of construction for Vattenfall until 1986, put it far more dramatically. "It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," he said. "It was the worst incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg,"
More info for you : The incident at Sweden's Forsmark plant underscores the vulnerability inherent in the process of producing nuclear energy. Experts say the accident won't be the last of its kind.
There are problems with terrorism.
Nuclear IS akin to terrorism with respect to its' impact on public opinion, I said it just above "[nuclear] will last only up to the first major accident, even if not so immediately lethal (a few thousands deaths), a Chernobyl in California or the like.".
What's the point engaging all these tremendous expenses only to fold down some years or decades after?
Mankind CANNOT AFFORD SUCH A LETHAL BLUNDER.
But may be your are thinking of "solving" this problem the same way terrorism is dealt with right now.
A "war on nuclear opponents" in addition of the "war on terror" ?
YOU didn't reply to my essential point either :
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
That is why nuclear makes sense.
You are pretending that nuclear will solves GW and preserve the existence of a majority of species on earth.
Energy production is not the only source of CO2 and overpopulation is a far more lethal threat to the "majority of species on earth".
Or I guess you support coal.
I already rejected that, DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!
Please respond to this essential argument, not side points.
...
but we have to stem greenhouse gas emissions
POWERDOWN!
Therefore even if nuclear is one of the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization, it is still wrong.
"IF"
Betting on "IF" and furthermore IT IS NOT "the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization".
For many reasons which appear on this whole thread, not only from me.
Hopefully brighter minds will prevail in this argument.
Brighter minds rarely prevail in politics this is why the advent of nuclear is truly an EXISTENTIAL RISK.
What we should do: suspend all local, state, and national laws and rights to sue, design a national plan and begin building an alternative (including nuclear) energy infrastructure with the speed and dedication that are only possible in centralized wartime economy. It is literally our only hope, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
The FINAL TOUCH.
Please be submissive to the forecoming police state it will save the earth.
One can see this police state coming, it will not save ANYTHING but the privileges of the NEW WARLORDS, those idiots will shoot themselves in the foot with this AND crash civilisation and the earth ecosystem.
Because they are so utterly short sighted.
You should be ashamed to work for them for a pittance, they won't care for you once your job is done.
Which guarantees did they offer you?
Wow, you're tough to follow.
I'll keep this real short. Two points:
I say that we are in fix of decline oil and gas supplies which means that will we begin drawing heavily on some combo of coal and nuclear. You say "powerdown" -- I say groovy as a slogan, but not very good as sole solution. Of course, powerdown has to a part of the solution and it will be necessity.
All your horsesh*t about me wanting a police state is ridiculous. I mean I agree with you that it's a serious threat, but it's a serious threat anyway with the chaos of a prolonged energy crisis ahead of us. I hardly think that aggressive WW2 style effort to stabilize our energy situation seriously lowers the long-term odds of becoming a police state.
My typing may have confused things. I didn't mean suspend "all laws" -- but those that would interfere with TVA-style energy infrastructure buildout I was talking about. And I'm not some mole for the pro-nuke neocons (I favor the same strategy for all viable carbon neutral energy technologies. Nuclear is simply the most effective at the moment.)
As has been pointed out, Britain during WW2 was a very different place than it was before or after -- why did they do that? B/c they faced a threat that could destroy them. That's the situation we;re in now, like it not.
You sed:
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
That is why nuclear makes sense.
You are pretending that nuclear will solves GW and preserve the existence of a majority of species on earth.
---
I think our primary normative duty is to try and arrest, as much as possible, the catastrophic spiral of rising surface and atmospheric temperatures on this planet. All other duties pale.
I'm pretending nothing. I'm pretty gloomy about our chances. But given what's at stake, I think we need to try very hard, and realize in the scheme of things that the dangers of nuclear are minute by comparison.
Anyway, no more on this with you.