Slashdot Mirror
Creator of the Gaia Hypothesis Urges Nuclear Power
SteamyMobile writes "Professor James Lovelock, creator the Gaia Hypothesis and long-time intellectual leader of the Green movement, says that global warming is a dire threat, more urgent than was previously realized. He compares the threat of global warming with the threat of the Nazis in 1938, and says that in both cases, the Left was not able to grasp the urgency of the situation and see the necessary solution. What is the necessary solution to stop the global warming problem? He says it's nuclear power. Needless to say, the Greens don't agree with him, and he chides them as having irrational phobias of a safer, cleaner energy sources. Even if the "Left" isn't fully aware of the urgency of the world's energy problems, it seems like Slashdot is."
Why not coal?. It could work out very well for us, you know. Better than it has in the past anyway.
Enviro-nuts scream about this problem... from every side! We have blackouts in California and NYC that made world news over the last couple years, yet the local energy companies can't build new power producing plants to keep up with demand... whether it be coal, gas or nuclear. Why? Enviro-nuts!
It seems these groups have campaigned against ANY type of energy plants in the last few years, and in fact, are responsible for our high gas prices right now. The main factor in the $2.07 national average for unleaded gas is that we do not have enough refineries to turn crude into usable fuel. Our refineries are at 95% capacity.... all attempts to build additional plants in the last few years have been destroyed by these Enviro-nuts.
I know this is a rant, and will probably get modded down... but hey, life is all about risks. My point is that these people on the left, these Enviro-nuts, have hindered Americas ability to recover from the Clinton-Gore recession by limiting oil refinement and limiting the building of new power generation stations (of all kinds, including Nuclear) forcing the U.S. to take huge hits to the economy when the price of gas goes high or when we have blackouts that take out our nation's largest business sectors.
And the worse part about it, these same nuts will be the first people to complain when they couldn't have their morning latte's or moca's because there was no electricity to heat or cool up their drinks!
Yeah, that's because your tiny cars are half the size of your average car sold in the US. Heck, we can't even buy cars as small as what you have over there. Of course, diesel engines also help mileage, though those are also hard to find around here in cars.
Then again, our government doesn't tax cars and fuel to death, so we can actually afford to buy and use our vehicles.
SUV owners are subject to supply and demand just like anyone else. As gas prices go up demand for SUV's will drop. I think I read somewhere that it is already happening. Do we need nuclear energy? Well... define "need"
Well, if you read the fucking article, you would realize that supply and demand is completely, utterly IRRELEVEVANT to the story.
There could be an infinite supply of fossil fuels, but the man would still be arguing to adopt nuclear power quickly. It has to do with the environmental impact of fossil fuels, not their projected future scarcity.
Right now, the environmental impact of SUV's is sufficiently abstracted such the average consumer will likely never appreciate their small contribution to the destruction of our planet until it is too late.
Tax oil (BEFORE refining). Try this thought experiment. Tax oil. Consumption goes down (supply/demand etc.). Competing suppliers respond with lower prices barrel prices in an attempt to keep market share. We (as a nation) effectively pay *less* for our oil AND our consumption rate decreases AND new markets are created for energy effiency AND alternative sources of energy become more attractive AND greenhouse gas emmisions decrease.
supply and demand. supply and demand. supply and demand. supply and demand. supply and demand. supply and demand. supply and demand.
You are like a broken record. Like most democractically minded people, you don't understand DEMAND ITSELF IS IRRELEVANT.
The people could demand SPECIFICALLY to destroy this planet, it doesn't mean we should let them. There is a very simple way to eliminate the demand in 99% of cases for fossil fuels: criminalize their possession.
Make it a capital offense, and that will be 99.9%.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Also great for keeping up the supply of donor organs! Everybody wins!
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
"Let's harness the nature's powers instead of raping it's resources."
Indeed. Rather than digging up oil in the desert, let's build huge, expensive wind-farms that destroy the landscape and massacre birds.
Odd, isn't it, that if oil refineries were slaughtering birds as a normal part of their operations the greenists would be all over them, yet when windmills do it, it's quietly ignored.
Every few years, it seems, a new climate-change scare is publicized in order to keep the parade of emissions regulations rolling along. The scare is eventually debunked, but the debunking is never as widely disseminated as the original tale of woe. The end result is an erroneous public perception that, much like Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11, drives public policy toward a particular outcome, no matter what the real science suggests. (Draw your own conclusion.)
No. You're an idiot. If only those who can afford to can drive SUVs, then far fewer SUVs will be driven and far less pollution will come from them. But you seem to be unhappy with the thought that anyone, anywhere, can drive what they want to.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
Nuclear power is great for those who are willing do manage the nuclear waste until such time as it is safe to eat - which I believe is hundreds of millions of years into the future.
Americans should never be allowed to use nuclear power, however, because they simply export their waste ( current exports include nuclear, electronic and toxic chemical waste ) to other countries who have leaders stupid enough to accept the waste. In many cases, these leaders are of course supported by the US with under-the-table contributions as well as military gifts.
Put simply, nuclear energy has great potential to power a planet's industry, however human society is not mature enough to manage the waste yet. It only takes one accident to render large portions of a country hostile to life for millions of years. We don't have the right to do that.