My Ethos

[XemaSab]

I think conservation and protecting what we have NOW is more important than fighting climate change. We've got a planet with such beautiful and amazing biodiversity, and we're rapidly trashing it.

Yes, I think climate change is real, but I don't think we have the will or the capability to stop this thing. I also don't think we can predict what the effects of climate change will be. I also am somewhat optimistic that most species will adapt to climate change. All extant species have survived ice ages, and the periods between ice ages. Some species will go extinct, but most species will continue to do their thing in the absence of other problems. I think that humans, on the other hand, are going to have massive problems adapting to climate change.

Also, we should get off oil as quickly as possible, because oil is killing us and killing our planet. We're fighting and killing each other and everything around us for oil. Garbage and chemical pollution are terrible. Issues such as deforestation and other types of habitat loss are a crisis. How can you expect species to survive, as they have done for millennia, if they have nowhere to go?

Wind farms destroy migrants and contribute to deforestation and sedimentation of waterways. Large solar facilities out in the desert destroy habitat. Hydropower totally destroys rivers and waterways.

Nuclear has a risk, yes, but it has a small footprint and it typically shreds species that are already abundant. I love geothermal, and I think that geothermal should be expanded, especially where I live in Northern California. Rooftop solar is expensive, but it doesn't destroy anything that isn't already destroyed. I would love to see wave power expanded, especially if it can be done in a way that is not destructive to the ocean environment. I am hopeful that we will find new ways of maintaining our standard of living without destroying everything we should be fighting to protect.

Everything I do and say is influenced from this perspective. :)

Anyone else care to share where they're coming from?

[joshcryer]

1. My Ethos

We're fucked.

[guardian]

2. DOOM DOOM DOOM

DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM

[XemaSab]

3. That too

n/t

[Kolesar]

12. That's pathos...eom

[GliderGuider]

4. Lord, what a starry-eyed optimist.

Since we're all in this together, take "we" in the following list to refer to the global human presence.

We will not conserve or protect anything.
We will not slow the extinction of species.
We will not dethrone the corporations.
We will not stop the despoilment of the land.
We will not stop plundering the oceans.
We will not stop using oil or coal.
We will not revive nuclear power.
We will not implement alt.energy.
We will not stop climate change.
We will not stop the acidification of the oceans.

We could do all these things, but we won't.

It's time for us, individually and collectively, to get on with doing something else with our lives.

[XemaSab]

5. At the end of the day

you can still die of amoebic dysentery.

[GliderGuider]

8. With a self-righteous smile on your face, saying

"See, I told you I was sick!"

[XemaSab]

9. The three greatest words in the English language may be "I love you"

but the four greatest words are "I told you so." :D

[pscot]

10. If you have amoebic dysentery

your plaint will be completely credible.

[GliderGuider]

11. I knew I shouldn't have had that second bowl of amoebas for breakfast.

That shit goes right through me...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

14. Here's what I've said about this elsewhere

"Over the last few years I've been working to reconcile personal optimism based on inner self-realization with deep impersonal pessimism based on my understanding of the external world. Sometimes one is in the ascendant, sometimes the other. Today it's the other. It's not a happy place, but it's at least as true as the unicorn of hope."

So no, I'm not depressed. I was, several years ago, but now it's balanced out by the joy that comes from my inner work. The balance is dynamic, not static, so it swings around a bit. Thanks for caring.

On edit: One of the reasons I post negative stuff here is that I find very little to be hopeful about on the environmental and energy fronts these days. I post more about joy and bliss on sites dealing with spiritual topics, but the closest I get to spirituality here is Deep Ecology, and given how we treat other species even that's not all that joyful.

One of my guiding principles is not to try and push away any feelings, whether positive or negative. I try to give them equal validity, and I don't every try to be happy just for the sake of not being upset, sad, angry or outraged. I think that pushing away any thoughts or feelings leads to a truncated existence. I prefer the balance that comes with feeling the prickles as well as the fuzzies.

[felix_numinous]

6. K&R

The reality of climate change means if we are to survive we have to change along with it, instead of throwing up our hands or self medicating ourselves into complacency. We do have many choices.

Can we save seeds? Plant endangered species of trees? Clean up waterways? Learn permaculture? Plant organic gardens? Create and preserve habitats for animals and insects? Research new ways to recycle our trash into useful forms? Insulate our homes to withstand severe weather? Build wetlands to naturally process human waste?

If we give up we are enabling people who want to manifest armageddon to do so.


A good ethos XemaSab :)

[GliderGuider]

7. I don't think the people who want to "manifest" Armageddon

give much of a rat's arse whether we enable them or not. But that's just my opinion.

We will keep on doing various useful and hopeful things because that's just what human beings do. I think it's good to use as much awareness and wisdom as each of us can muster when we decide on our personal agendas. Part of the awareness involves considering other life forms in our plans. Part of the wisdom involves deciding which windmills to tilt at and which to take a pass on.

It's also nice to spend a big part of our wisdom budget on not getting bent out of shape when reality turns out different than we'd hoped.

[Kennah]

15. So conflicted I could be Sybil

The planet will not explode or die. It has survived worse than humans and undergone far more dynamic change than anything we will ever be able to inflict. Life will prevail here for a long time.

Humans will not go extinct. Breeding pairs have survived cataclysmic natural events when there was no civilization and little science beyond the production of stone tools and creation of fire. However, I fear we could see the death of several BILLION humans--upwards of 80% of us--before the year 2100. A lot of plant and animal species will go extinct, but humans will live to rue the loss. Read about the coming http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html">100,000 year fever.

Civilization is the thing which is most at risk. Failing infrastructure, frail power grid, widely disbursed suburbs and a dependence on fossil fuels. Civilization clings to and depends upon cheap energy for survival. Expensive oil, coal, or natural gas could push us over the edge.

The collapse and effective disappearance of civilization would cause the developed world to descend a long way. The warlords of Somalia then become the norm across the planet. Will the bodies of one tribe's enemies become dinner to avoid starvation? If so, no one is going to give a damn about habitat, wildlife, and the consumption of resources. The disappearance of first world developed civilization would cause a huge positive feedback, and that's a bad thing.

I think conservation and protecting biodiversity are inexorably intertwined with combating anthropocentric climate change.

Accurate prediction of when we'll hit 2°C rise in temperature isn't nearly as significant as accepting the path we're on--warming.

Smaller species will adapt to climate change more easily. Larger species have never adapted to change very well.

The fossil fuels of oil, coal, and natural gas (read up on fracking if anyone still loves natural gas) are killing us and our planet.

A ninth grade high school teacher, back in 1981, told us that we would eventually start mining our landfills. I was inclined to believe it at the time, and today I'm absolutely convinced we'll have to do it just to preserve and advance certain technology.

Fretting because wind farms, solar, and hydro have an impact on wildlife and habitat is a waste of time. Nothing has zero impact. Yes, better choices can be made through better siting, but maintain perspective at all times. Subsistence hunting destroys wildlife, farming destroys habitat, but these can be and are done responsibly.

Nuclear fission can be scary, but I agree with Dr. James Lovelock that it's the http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html">green solution. It's a necessary mistress with whom we must dance, for decades to come, if we expect civilization to remain.

Geothermal raises my concern level, but I want R&D to proceed.

Rooftop solar ain't cheap, but it's not beyond the means of all save the wealthy. If I had my way I'd double or triple the budget of the NREL if I could get the votes.

Wave, tide, offshore wind, biomass, etc. also need to be pursued. However, just as wind and PVs affect habitat and wildlife, so too will wave and tide.

Wanna make a difference? Read Part II of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air.

Impatient? Go to http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_116.shtml">Page 116.

Need it boiled down further?

"... electrify transport ... electrify most heating of air and water in buildings using heat pumps ... get all the green electricity from a mix of four sources: from our own renewables; perhaps from “clean coal;” perhaps from nuclear; and finally, and with great politeness, from other countries’ renewables ."

OCM seems potentially problematic since we're already relying upon OCO.

David J.C. MacKay.
Sustainable Energy - without the hot air.
UIT Cambridge, 2008.
ISBN 978-0-9544529-3-3.
Available free online from www.withouthotair.com

Most days I manage to delude myself into believing all is well, the future is bright, and Dr. Michio Kaku was right when he said he believed we'd go right up to the edge of disaster then pull back in the final moments.

Being the volunteer PTA science club coordinator at my son's elementary school, I do have genuine hope to see kids K through 5 excited about science. I tell myself they will grow up and learn to drive seeing hybrids, plugins and EVs as good things and the future. I tell myself they'll learn conservation, recycling, stewardship of our resources, and practice these without thinking any of it is an imposition. I tell myself the really smart and energetic ones will major in science, some of them will study energy, and at least a few, somewhere out there, are going to become multi-billionaires when they discover or invent something incredibly innovative that ultimately saves civilization and changes the world in a huge way.

[kristopher]

16. How do you answer the fact that nuclear power incurs a very hefty opportunity cost?

In other words that it significantly slows response to climate change because it takes so long to build and costs so much?

Or that expanding its use involves a real danger of nuclear proliferation?

Or the fact that there is no way to effectively deal with the wastes?

Vietnam and Thailand made the nuclear news lately because they, together with the nuclear sales folks, announced they were going to bring several nuclear plants on line by 2020. That would have made the planning and construction time about 12-14 years depending on when they started. They just had to slip the date to 2028 because there aren't enough trained personnel to do the job, which is a global problem, not a local one.

And if you are going along with nuclear because of Lovelock's endorsement, you might want to read this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Lovelock

[Kennah]

17. A few thoughts

I'm not sure whether Vietnam and Thailand are the best examples imaginable when there are other successes with far better numbers.

Lingao-1, China, 5 years
Onagawa-3, Japan, 3 years
Qinshan-2 (Phase II, Unit 1), China, 6 years
Hamaoka-5, Japan, 4 years
Higashi-Dori-1 (Tohoku), Japan, 5 years
Tarapur-4, India, 5 years
Ulchin-6, South Korea, 5 years

I guess I'm not sold on the power begats weapons argument. The U.S. did start with nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. The U.S. let the genie outta the bottle, our efforts to get the weapons back in the bottle haven't been very successful overall, and telling others they can have neither nuclear weapons nor nuclear power does not appear to be working.

Waste storage from existing plants remains a big problem and has been for a long time. As much as I like The President, I don't get the logic in taking Yucca Mountain off the table while at the same funding more nuclear power.

On Dr. Lovelock, this is one of the best assessments I've read, and I think it's the best description I would give to supporting nuclear.

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page20.html
"He is backing nuclear power out of desperation, not because it is a rational option."

Another thoughtful on the subject of nukes comes from Dr. David MacKay.

http://beta.metafaq.com/action/answer?id=REPGPO7I9A5RUEK1GPHMVO3BDM&ref=http%3a%2f%2fapi.transversal.com%2fmfapi%2fobjectref%2fEntryStore%2fEntry%2fhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.metafaq.com%2fmfapi%2fMetafaq%2fClients%2fmackay%2fModules%2fwha%3a158196%3a0
http://tinyurl.com/24ows6t

[kristopher]

18. So you arrive at the decision to support nuclear by ignoring the costs?

You say you're "not sold" on the proliferation argument? Unfortunately, it isn't an argument; it is a known state of affairs that exists in objective reality. You can not CARE about it, but you cannot legitimately deny it.

The same with wastes. There is no effective way to deal with the wastes. John Holdren, co-author of the MIT study on nuclear quoted below estimates that meeting 1/3 of global energy needs from nuclear would require a new Yucca Mountain every 2 years. Again, you can not CARE about the wastes but you are still going to produce them and not have anything to do with them.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

**If you don't know "crowding out" works, it is explained in this paper that you can find with Google:
POLICY CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION, COST ESCALATION AND CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. AND FRANCE FOR THE EFFORT TO REVIVE THE U.S. INDUSTRY WITH LOAN GUARANTEES AND TAX SUBSIDIES
MARK COOPER SEPTEMBER 2010

Can you cite any environmental organizations that endorse nuclear power?

[BeFree]

19. Good Information, Kristopher

Enough to nail the door shut on nukes, almost.
Keep pounding.