Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Either we build real community -- with mass transit and local food -- or we will go down clinging to the wreckage of our privatized society.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

If We Want to Survive the Climate Crisis We Must Change

By Bill McKibben, YES! Magazine. Posted March 15, 2008.


Either we build real community -- with mass transit and local food -- or we will go down clinging to the wreckage of our privatized society.
Advertisement

At any given moment we face as a society an enormous number of problems: there's the mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, the endless war in Iraq, and on and on. Maybe we'll solve some of them, and doubtless new ones will spring up to take their places. But there's only one thing we're doing that will be easily visible from the moon. That something is global warming. Quite literally it's the biggest problem humans have ever faced, and while there are ways to at least start to deal with it, all of them rest on acknowledging just how large the challenge really is.

What exactly do I mean by large? Last fall the scientists who study sea ice in the Arctic reported that it was melting even faster than they'd predicted. We blew by the old record for ice loss in mid-August, and by the time the long polar night finally descended, the fabled Northwest Passage was open for navigation for the first time in recorded history. That is to say, from outer space the Earth already looks very different: less white, more blue.

What do I mean by large? On the glaciers of Greenland, 10 percent more ice melted last summer than any year for which we have records. This is bad news because, unlike sea ice, Greenland's vast frozen mass sits above rock, and when it melts, the oceans rise -- potentially a lot. James Hansen, America's foremost climatologist, testified in court last year that we might see sea level increase as much as six meters -- nearly 20 feet -- in the course of this century. With that, the view from space looks very different indeed (not to mention the view from the office buildings of any coastal city on earth).

What do I mean by large? Already higher heat is causing drought in arid areas the world over. In Australia things have gotten so bad that agricultural output is falling fast in the continent's biggest river basin, and the nation's prime minister is urging his people to pray for rain. Aussie native Rupert Murdoch is so rattled he's announced plans to make his NewsCorp empire (think Fox News) carbon neutral. Australian voters ousted their old government last fall, largely because of concerns over climate.

What do I mean by large? If we'd tried we couldn't have figured out a more thorough way to make life miserable for the world's poor, who now must deal with the loss of the one thing they could always take for granted -- the planet's basic physical stability. We've never figured out as efficient a method for obliterating other species. We've never figured out another way to so fully degrade the future for everyone who comes after us. Or rather, we have figured out one other change that rises to this scale. That change is called all-out thermo-nuclear war, and so far, at least, we've decided not to have one.

But we haven't called off global warming. Just the opposite: in the 20 years that we've known about this problem, we've steadily burned more coal and gas and oil, and hence steadily poured more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Instead of a few huge explosions, we've got billions of little ones every minute, as pistons fire inside engines and boilers burn coal. Having put off real change, we've made our job steadily harder. But there are signs that we're finally ready to get to work. Congress is for the first time seriously considering legislation that would actually limit U.S. emissions. The bills won't be signed by President Bush, and they don't do everything that needs doing -- but they're a start.

And the international community meeting in Bali in December overcame U.S. resistance and began the steps toward an international treaty that will be ready in 2009. The talks are going slowly, largely because of American intransigence, but George Bush won't be president forever, so there's at least a chance we'll re-engage with the rest of the world. If we do, there are steps we can take. Because the problem is so big, and coming at us so fast, those steps will need to be large. And even so, they won't be enough to stop global warming -- at best they will slow it down and give us some margin. But here's the deal:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, bill mckibben, step it up

Bill McKibben wrote this article as part of Stop Global Warming Cold, the Spring 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature, Wandering Home, and Deep Economy, and a founder of StepItUp, which has recently joined forces with 1sky.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And the answer to the problem is.....SOCIALISM.
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Mar 15, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry guys it will not work, socialism was not viable before and it will not be viable to take care of the problem.

The issue is as the writer rightly points out is China and India. How to get them to conserve energy. Can we really ask them not to develop thier economies so that thier population comes out of poverty. The Indian people hs been kept down by statism, a form of socialism, the five year plans. China because of communism.

The Western world is fast changing its consumption patterns. Is drastically cutting its carbon emissions.

However the hair shirt, Luddite attitude will get us nowhere. Nor romanticizing alternative energy sources.

Nuclear and hydroelectric power will tide us over before we get the new technologies working as well and individual choice will get us there. And making the world a more democratic place so that individuals can force their governments to be more environmentally conscious. Does anybody believe that the total disaster of air pollution in Shanghai and Beijing would be allowed in New York or Los Angeles?

No more reality is needed and less hair shirting, dreaming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excuse me... Posted by: skoog5600
» Do Your Homework Posted by: HeKnew
» Socialism Posted by: HeKnew
» RE: Socialism Posted by: particle
» Björn Lomborg Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Björn Lomborg Posted by: particle
» Swedish reactors will not shut down Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Nuclear Fusion! Posted by: edgar_michel
Schizo
Posted by: g50 on Mar 15, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't it be great if there was a cheap supply of inexhaustible, renewable energy? Get on the nuclear train. Don't like it? Then quit talking about climate change. It's the only viable solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pathetic and poorly read.... Posted by: boydranchitos
» Energy Corporate Montra Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Schizo Posted by: toddcory
» Energy is Energy Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Schizo Posted by: themotie
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 15, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only these changes are ever going to occur is if there's a reconnect between people and power.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What do you mean wiht direct democracy? Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Direct Democracy Posted by: HeKnew
» Fascism is a variant of socialism Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Fascism Posted by: HeKnew
» RE: Fascism Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Fascism Posted by: pdxstudent
» Uninteresting Back-Peddling Posted by: pdxstudent
» Socialism does not work it is an utopia Posted by: Swedish liberal
» You Are Very Right Posted by: pdxstudent
» Sure! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Sure! Posted by: richholland
What we cannot afford is war.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 15, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cut to the chase. The waste from building weapon systems that we hope and plan not to use would take us a giant step in the direction of a healthy planet.

We do not have, anywhere so far as I can tell, a political system that puts the planet ahead of war.

The world is run by international capitalists from every major nation around the globe. They need a police force. So each nation provides their capitalists with a police force.

That can be changed with treaties. No treaties? No change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto .
Posted by: otto on Mar 15, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My old religious teachings used to urge us to be less materialistic and more spiritual (at least in theory!) I still believe that we need more spirituality in our lives, and that calls us to create and become community. We're all like people left in a lifeboat after the Titanic struck the iceberg; unless we support each other and show concern for each other, none of us will survive. Cooperation is the key word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Cooperation is the key word." Posted by: toddcory
Some Progress
Posted by: Southern Gal on Mar 15, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see some progress in the area where I live. More people are growing their own food in gardens. The local farmers are providing food for the school cafeterias. There is a community garden for people who don't have the space to grow food. There is a beginning effort to get bike lines into town. The town got grants and installed sidewalks in town to limit cars. The grocery stores are labeling locally grown food and putting it in prominent sections of the produce section. Some people have installed solar panels and I see an occassional windmill. The local energy/electric power co-op is encouraging household conservation of energy through insulation, energy saving bulbs, and energy efficient appliances. It's a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First let's undo the 70 year old RIGGED market.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 15, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, etc ... have been given no subsidies or tax breaks. Hemp itself was deemed "illegal" despite the fact that it's harmless. The market was RIGGED to allow Big Oil and its allies Big Coal, Chemical, Cotton, Paper, Tobacco, Pharma, etc ... no real competition. If natural plants and herbs such as hemp and stevia weren't illegalized, there would be a people's market for real competition.

First reform our pols.

VOTENADER.ORG !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good answer, bad question
Posted by: billwald on Mar 15, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He presents a real problem and a real answer but they are not connected.

First, if global warming is a done deal then the logical first step is for the government to stop putting money into rebuilding New Orleans and the other low lying areas and to stop selling flood insurance in these areas.

Second, if dirty air and water is bad for people then we need cleaner energy sources and chemical processes but this doesn't haver anything to to with climate change.

Third, if rain/snow patterns are changing and/or if population is growing and/or moving then we will need new water storage and flood control dams.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hope vs. events on the ground...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 15, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hope: We'll start building well-insulated homes, not too spacious, with areas for gardening and vegetation.

Reality: Developers throw up new subdivisions of large homes placed cheek-to-jowl, poorly insulated, made of cheap building materials (glued fiberboard is unhealthy!), constructed by underpaid employees. The prices for these homes were inflated by collusion between brokers, banks and assesors, and became overvalued collateral for the subprime debt shuffling business. When's the last time you saw a new housing development built with solar PV included?

Solution: Change the building codes to require solar heating and PV for all developer projects, and to require a high level of insulation.

And so on...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

redroadtraveler
Posted by: redroadtraveler on Mar 15, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, guys. It's too late. Stories like this are an attempt to wake up people who refuse to be awakened. The convergence of peak oil, climate change, water shortages, population increases, etc. will wreck untold havoc on the planet, especially to the USA and its "unnegotiable" life style of profligate waste. The poor in other countries are already starting to feel the effects. Food prices are already skyrocketing, due in no small measure to planting corn for ethanol instead of food, and people are starving in greater and greater numbers. Food riots are already happening. Most of this happens in "other countries" at the moment, so we in the USA have a disconnect from it. With 5% of the world population, we use 25% of the world's energy resources. The outcome of this disaster humanity has brought upon itself will be planet-wide.

Want to understand it better instead of just ignoring it and pretending that someone else will solve it? Take your own personal test. Go to: http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re: AlterNet article; Feb. 5, 2002; “When the Army Owns the Weather”
Posted by: saywhat on Mar 15, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate change by the U.S. Government
A method of modifying the weather, U.S. patent number 6315213 was filed November 13, 2001. This describes an alarming procedure. A Wright Patterson Air Force scientist stated at the time, that the planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.” During this same time period the Saturday Review stated that a CIA report indicated that the U.S. government had the ability to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes.
The jet chemtrail grid patterns now seen throughout the United States and the world are very likely this technology applied for weather modification and military purposes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yup, we're DOOMED
Posted by: pangolin on Mar 15, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't going to be an active resistance to Global Warming until a few million western/European people die in a single year. By then it will be too late to do anything but put tinsel and pretty lights on our collective suicide.

There are really only three things that need to be done:

1. Conserve in every area that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced until emissions equal zero.

2. Build a clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal) infrastructure to support essential services and then later a full economy. Nuclear power and "clean coal" are fascist fantasies that make guys like Putin drool with anticipation of slapping the off switch.

3. Capture and sequester excess GHG's in the atmosphere using soil building and biochar technologies.

We're currently doing NONE of the above to any effective degree. We aren't even considering it. We spend hours arguing endlessly with trolls from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries about marginal solution paths.

You might as well instruct your children in the wonders of drug addiction and personal debasement because they have no real future. They get to inherit a Mad Max/Bladerunner world where everything honest and beautiful will die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's the Clincher Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Yup, we're DOOMED Posted by: Cathyc
» DOOMED: faster than expected Posted by: pangolin
» RE: DOOMED: I'm a canary Posted by: pangolin
Global warming not human
Posted by: dchabot on Mar 15, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I totally agree that we must reduce pollution and go local for food and goods, it is important to know that GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS. It's the SUN, folks. Serious scientific studies confirm this. Check for yourself, google "Global warming not human".
This is just a scam to impose more control and the scandalous CARBON TAX that we, taxpayers will have to pay for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civilization-wrecking climate/anthropogenic nastification
Posted by: gerly on Mar 15, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Correction, when a windmill generates electricity, it is called a wind turbine.

The operative global warming, which is too 'comfy' should be titled civilization-wrecking climate/anthropogenic nastification.

Shameful that there are no provisions for tax credits or incentives for renewable energy technologies by the federal gov't. Albeit, the financial community is leery of supporting and financing these technologies w/o gov't support, so there's essentially little R&D funding for this year. Bottom line: the burgeoning RE industry is highly reliant on these tax credits and incentives. And, if the current bill, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351), a bill that that passed house in round #3, is earmarked stripping subsides (subsidies that have historically been afforded the petroleum/oil/natural gas/nuclear industry for ~70+ years), in behalf of renewable energy technologies is not passed, woe is this nation.

For those naysayers, this is a GREAT vid for any disbelievers of civilization-wrecking global climate/anthropogenic nastification:
YouTube :: How it all ends - "We only get to run this 'experiment' once."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill McKibben, it is far, far worse than that
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And "community," whatever that is, is irrelevant.
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I ahve no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power can save us.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power can save us from the collapse of civilization and extinction.
Nuclear is the one source of energy that is actually proven to work for base load
power that produces 14.7 million tons of CO2 LESS than coal per 1000
megawatts per year. Burning coal to make electricity is the #1 source of CO2.
Nuclear power is also far safer than coal. Remember that coal also contains
URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron,
Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of
these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.
How are YOU going to do it? Go ahead and invest YOUR money.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable. Don't give up.

We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear power can save us. Posted by: Mr. Heathen
Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
I have no information that would lead me to believe that
Chernobyl was a plutonium breeder. I think it was a power
reactor. The real point is that the Soviet Union didn't spend
money on R&D for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years,
American reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have
way overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 20,000 to 30,000 people per year in the US
according to Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in
2008 are nothing like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in
1944. Soviet built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.

PS: I don't remember the source, but I read within the last week
that 1 Million people in China die each year from air pollution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have many centuries worth of nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear "waste" is valuable fuel that is being wasted. Nuclear "waste" should be
reprocessed into fuel and put back in nuclear reactors. We already have enough
fuel stored in Yucca Mountain to last for centuries. It just needs reprocessing
and breeding. Thorium can be bred into fissionable Uranium233 and
Uranium238 can be bred into Plutonium. Plutonium is excellent fuel. We also
have tens of thousands of bombs that could be converted to fuel.

Refining and reprocessing use trivial amounts of energy. Building wind turbines
and solar cells uses energy also.

Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1 billion watt coal fired
power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. [The difference between coal
and nuclear is the 4 Million tons of carbon/coal which makes 14.7 Million tons of
CO2. Of course, Mining 4 Million tons of coal takes a lot more energy than
mining 1 ton of uranium.] If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million,
you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons =
8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1
billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year.
There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.

Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs 44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the weekly trainload. The nuclear power plant
consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry an equal
weight in a brief case. [Actually, nuclear power plants are not fueled that often.
In some designs, the fuel is left in the reactor for ten years and then changed all at
once. In other reactors, 10% of the fuel is changed once each year. That is why
terrorists can't steal nuclear fuel. It stays sealed inside the machine for long
periods of time.] We can fuel our nuclear power plants just by extracting
uranium and thorium from coal cinders and smoke.
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are distributed in
millions of pounds of stack emissions each year. They include:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear safety
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cleaner uranium mining
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In-situ leach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach

In-situ leaching (ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or
solution mining, is a process of recovering minerals such as
copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into the deposit.
The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit.
Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open
pathways in the deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching
solution is pumped into the deposit where it makes contact with
the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore content is then
pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the
extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need
for conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or
underground mining.

Australia has more than 18 places to mine uranium,
Egypt has 10 potential uranium mines...................
There is no shortage of fresh uranium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NEW SPEAK
Posted by: astralman on Mar 15, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate change is the synonym which the MSM use to "warm" the sheeple up to the reality that is peak oil. the cheap oil age is ending at a rapid pace and we are now running around in the sand box killing people to support our "non-negotiable" way of life. Listen to James Lovelock when he says that we need more technology, nuclear power, and ever other ounce of technical ingenuity to peacefully transition in this time period. we are addicted to oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NEW SPEAK Posted by: richholland
» RE: NEW SPEAK Posted by: particle
community : profitmaking
Posted by: richholland on Mar 15, 2008 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The target of a community is a good life for all members of that community.

the target of the corporation is as much profit for a small group of shareholders.

A corporated society NEVER can stop Global warming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is EXTINCTION that we are trying to avoid.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

Yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist with experience in
the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects.

Yes, I like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy. They are inadequate to
meet our needs with current technology. Proposed energy storage solutions have
not been figured out in all details. Wind and solar energy are only available part
time. Wind fluctuates so much most places that it accomplishes nothing. The
coal fired power plant has to maintain "spinning reserve," which means it
continues to burn just as much coal as before. The test is: Has it taken a coal fired
power plant off line? If it has NOT taken a coal fired power plant off line, it has
accomplished nothing. Counting windmills is otherwise pointless. Hydro and
geothermal are local and rare. ONLY nuclear power plants have actually taken
coal fired power plants off line, with rare exceptions.

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]