Slashdot Mirror
Stewart Brand on 'Environmental Heresies'
FleaPlus writes "The MIT Technology Review has an article predicting where the mainstream of the environmental movement may likely reverse its collective stance in the next ten years. The four areas discussed are population growth, urbanization, genetically-engineered organisms, and nuclear power. The article is written by Stewart Brand, known for creating the Whole Earth Catalog, the WELL online community, and the Long Now Foundation. Brand also has some interesting comments regarding the sometimes-conflicting interaction between romantics and scientists in the environmental movement. There's an online debate between Brand and former DOE official Joseph Romm on TR Blogs." Frankly, unless humanity decides to undergo a massive collective personality change of not being consumption-focused, I don't see much other way around these particular issues. What we all need is an Arthur to keep us depressed and sleeping in darkened rooms to lower energy consumption.
Nuclear Power
I am an environmentalist. And I hate Nuclear energy. But it is not because of
its inherent dangers. It is not because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It
is because Nuclear energy is not the solution.
Why not?
Uranium deposits are shrinking at an alarming rate. In a few decades time,
the cheap U ores would have run out, and the remaining deposits would absorb
more energy to extract a gram of U than that gram can ever hope give back.
Over reliance on Nuclear energy can easily turn us away from looking at
real alternatives. That's my gripe with Newkiller. Not some quasi-religious
aversion.
Investigate Rumsfeld, Tenet for Torture
"I don't much other way around this particular issue."
Do they even READ these things before accepting them?
Increasing demand for power and other resources isn't going away. Time to suck it up and deal with imperfect solutions.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
If it's not the illogical people that are against nuclear power, and don't understand things like "real life", it's the rich people with more money than sense.
There have been numerous stories about wind-power stations, or water-power stations being denied permission to be built, because rich people don't want to ruin their view of the ocean from their homes on the ocean. Damnit.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I know who Stewart Brand is. I want to know what among his experience means we should believe a single word he has to say on the Environment?
Or maybe Mr Brand believes a science degree and a few moderately succesful books immediately qualifies him as an expert in anything he cares to to turn his mind to (I believe affliction is usually known as EricRaymondism.)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Too bad that people don't realise that coal based energy production is much more hazardous to inveroment...furthermore, it's not only about what people typically understand as pollution, but also also radioactive "waste"! (typical nuclear plant doesn't release them to biosphere; typical coal plant releases some amount of it - radioactive elements that were in its fuel) And meanwhile almost 100% of electricity here comes from coal, and worst of all, 2/3 of it is brown coal :/
And probably public will block construction of nuclear power plant, that is planned in the next ~10/15 years...
One that hath name thou can not otter
That's the entire intent of this article.
But it is becoming more and more obvious that the global warming emperor has no clothes.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I read this article in dead tree form some weeks ago.
One of the choice bits was Brand's assertion that left wing opposition to GM foods is a mirror image of right wing opposition to water flouridization. The right doesn't like flourdization because it comes from the government. The left doesn't like GM foods because they come from industry.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The real danger of genetically engineered ANYTHING is that you risk creating a monoculture, which could make an entire food crop or species vulnerable to rapid extinction under adverse conditions.
The more specialized a species becomes, the more it needs a tightly defined environment in which to exist. If anything happens to change its environment...and it will...it can have catastrophic consequences.
Engineered plants and animals can also overwhelm other wildlife in the same niches of the ecosystem, despite precautions, and throw the entire ecosystem out of balance. (In much the same way that non-native animals introduced to closed ecosystems can have very disruptive results...witness the Cane toad plague in Australia)
Mother nature has spent millenia sorting out which species are best adapted to survive on our planet, and she does so without prejudice. Can you say the same for a profit-minded food corporation?
This article describes a GMO rice that is herbicide resistant. Scientists spliced in a human enzyme that is very effective at crunching toxins to create rice that can withstand a wider variety of weed-killers. This lets farmers rotate their weedkillers to reduce the chance that the weeds evolve resistance.
The GMO rice provides two other important environmental benefits. First, the new enzyme is so efficient at detoxifying the herbicide that the resulting rice is relatively herbicide free (non-modified rice contains 20X more residual herbicide). Second, the GMO rice extracts herbicide from the soil, meaning less herbicide in run-off.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The biggest polluting country in the world has a decidedly environmentally-unfriendly government running things, and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
You mean Australia? The only reason the US is tagged as the world's biggest polluter is because the Kyoto protocol excludes greenhouse emissions from land-clearing.
My mind got changed on the subject a few years ago by an Indian acquaintance who told me that in Indian villages the women obeyed their husbands and family elders, pounded grain, and sang. But, the acquaintance explained, when Indian women immigrated to cities, they got jobs, started businesses, and demanded their children be educated.
When I read this I thought of Hillary Clinton's memorable tome, "It Takes a Village". In retrospect it was about a prescient as Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead". Did she get anything right?
an ill wind that blows no good
These are not isolated, ignorant farmers who just plant corn. These farmers are doing their hardest to follow best practices and be competitve in the agri-industry, and honestly, they're still killing their land. Unless we make a big change in how soil quality is treated, our ability to produce food is going to take nose dive. It's simple.
And don't start on the vegetarianism rant. In North America, plant production with the overuse of petroleum based chemical fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is what is killing soil - not grazing.
In truly well-packed places, like Paris or New York, you get everywhere on foot or on public transportation and don't need a car at all. A car would be a liability, expensive to park and hard to use.
But once you get to the sort of density where Wal-Mart likes, they've centralized some of the shopping but you still have to take a car to get there. Which means you have to own a car, so you're already paying to buy it, insure it, maintain it, regardless of how many miles you drive. So you might as well take it everywhere; public transport would be nice but since you've already paid for the car it's less economically efficient for you.
So we're talking about very different kinds of centralization. Wal-Mart doesn't particularly want to go into large cities because cities already have centralization in the overall structure; you can get things from a variety of different places without travelling much. That, for many, is the best of both worlds. Assuming you like living in apartment buildings.
I agree with the parent. The argument that "GM crops will help 3rd world countries" is appealing but fundamentally flawed. I am in favor of (regulated) research into GM crops, since there is much potential. However, (as many reviews in Science and Nature magazine have pointed out) it is silly to believe that GM crops will help out 3rd world countries anymore than modern bred crops have. After all, these GM crops are being designed by large western corporations. They are being optimized for conditions that are beneficial to these companies. And worse, they are being licensed and patented by these companies. Third-world countries won't get "cheaper food", or higher wages to cultivate these crops... the big companies will just have higher crop yields and slightly higher profits.
The problem is that GM crops *could* be used to help feed the 3rd-world... but then again conventional crops would also do the job. The problem is not lack of agricultural land or even food resources, it's the fact that there is no economic incentive for 1st-world countries to donate food to the 3rd-world (nor is that really a sustainable solution). The real limitations to feeding the whole world are economic and social, not technological, hence GM crops have a small part to play.
The "feed the 3rd world" argument is something the companies would like us to believe. But ultimately alot more than GM crops is going to be needed to address that global issue.
I concider myself a soft enviromentalist, Population growth, well it's a problem in some countries in most of europe the population is in decline only kept up by economic migrants. I don't have much of a problem with urbanisation, but it'd be nice if we could have clean cities instead of dirty ones (comming from congested brittan I don't much like the car, and have no problem with keeping them out of city centers), Neuclear power, it won't last forever but for now it's looking like one of the best options.
But GM foods and other orgaisms, they do worry me a little bit, I'm just waiting till we see the roundup ready dandylion.
Well, one reason is to consider our quality of life before we are wiped off the face of the planet (if that even happens). This kind of attitude is like saying "I'm going to die eventually anyway, so why bother keeping myself healthy and enjoying life?"
It is also unecessarily alarmist. Environmentalists are often accused of being hysterical - but most of them don't believe in this "apocalypse" scenario, like you do. Yes, we are upset about environmental degradation. Yes, people are suffering because of it. But only the most lunatic fringe believes in a sudden impending doom, or stocking up on shotguns for when the revolution comes, or the energy runs out. It's because environmentalists are interested in survival that they don't just give up in the face of overwhelming odds.
(OT: I always find it amazing how the political extremes on both right and left, adopt this "sudden extiction" rhetoric from opposite angles - religious and environmental)
Basically, we are perfectly capable of humans of adapting to changes in our lifestyles, and we are capable of slowing, and even reversing the damage we have done. We can survive and change if we want to. Sure, people don't like change, but I think most people would prefer survival to wallowing in our own filth, when they are faced with the inevitable.
Throughout history, there have been people who have predicted total doom, and those who predicted total utopia. I don't believe any of them have ever been correct. Meanwhile, most of us live in a difficult, complicated world that has many shades of gray - and do our best to cope with what we have. The visions of some future paradise or hell, are used to manipulate the dreams and fears of people, to draw them away from the difficult contradictions of reality.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Just to add to this post... as someone who has worked in a nuclear reactor, I'd like to comment on the safety of nuclear vs. coal/petroleum industries. In addition to nuclear releasing far less pollution into the environment (and all its waste being very localized and contained), there is the issue of worker safety.
The nuclear industry is very well regulated. Worker safety (and radiation exposure) is meticulously monitored and recorded. Because the entire system is so paranoid and regulated, it is very safe. The most dangerous thing about working in a nuclear plant is conventional industrial accidents (like a crane falling on you). The risk increase due to the presence of nuclear power is minimal.
It is very strange that the public would be shocked and horrified if 10 people were killed in a nuclear power plant accident. However, many more than that are injured or killed every year in the coal/petroleum industry (think of fires on oil rigs, etc.) because this industry is far less safety-oriented. (It's also worth reminding that nuclear power is "more expensive" than other power sources mostly due to this level of regulation.)
The number of injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry, per year, is small compared to other power industries (and indeed compared to most industries in general). So from the point of view of worker safety, nuclear (in its current, regulated form) is the best.
The environmental people are conflicted because they are classic suburbanites. They want to move to a beautiful village or suburban community and lock the door behind them.
I went to a zoning board meeting to get a fence permit. I was stuck at this meeting until almost 1AM because some anti-sprawl activist group had about 20 speakers present to speak out against the environmental destruction that a Walgreens (!) would reap on an already bustling commercial corridor. They were demanding building moratoriums and injunctions against the "sprawl" projects for hours.
The president of the group was someone I recognized: a woman who just built a McMansion in a 300-house subdivision whose homeowners association put nearby farmers out of business because they didn't like the smell of the animals.
People like that represent the money behind the environmental movement. They are against sprawl, until they buy a house on the new subdivision. They want people to move back into the cities, but are unwilling to send kids to urban schools. They protest Wal-Mart's environmental impact when a new one comes to town, yet drive 15 miles to another another one to save $0.10 on green beans.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
His reliance on nuclear energy as the solution to the greenhouse emission problem betrays exactly the sort of lack of creativity just described. Natural ecosystems need not suffer substantial presence of intensive agriculture and global warming CO2 can be sequestered from the atmosphere in the process.
Agriculture need not be land intensive. In fact, it can be removed from the vast majority of existing ecosystems with a relatively minor amount of innovation in food processing and packaging.
On about 108 acres, Earthrise Farms in the Imperial Valley desert, California is producing 67kg of protein per square meter per year using relatively little water. This is better than 20 times the yield of soybeans and includes one of the broadest spectrums of amino acids of any known source of protein. The crop is spirulina, a blue green algae that is a source of nutrition at the base of the aquatic food chain. They have been doubling their production every 5 years but have limited themselves to a niche market in health food or "nutriceuticals". The primary technology they need developed to make this protein directly consumable by humans as a staple of the diet is removal of nucleic acids -- something that may be feasible as an extension of their centrifugal drying process. In any case, it is an excellent feed stock for animals and can displace many times its own acreage in conventional agricultural uses.
The late John Martin at Moss Landing hypothesized in 1987 that large sections of the tropical Pacific were ready to support ecosystems nearly as abundant as the oceans off the coast of Peru except for the lack of one key nutrient: Iron. In 1995, subsequent to his death, his team tested "the Iron hypothesis" by spreading a half ton of iron sulfate (available in huge cheap quantities as a byproduct of iron smelting) over a wide area of ocean. The south Pacific ocean turned from "crystal clear electric blue", virtually devoid of life, to duck pond green. They produced 25,000 tons of biomass for a factor of 50,000 gain from fertilizer to biomass. Once the ocean desert bloomed with phytoplankton, zooplankton, the next link up the food chain, began grazing. Had they kept going, zooplankton grazing fish could have been introduced, such as anchovies, but they terminated the ferti
Seastead this.
Well, genes do appear through mutation, so if you have a few million or billion years, you could probably get fish oil in corn. There's also "jumping genes" and viruses which can move genetic material from one species to another. Bacteria do it all the time. If I remember right, there was some tentative examples of this happening in a few cases with larger species (shark cancer resistance maybe?)
Selective breeding isn't simply shuffling genes around. Instead it's taking the "most desirable" of the current crop and propagating it. Historically there was little understanding as to where those traits came from. Creating corn, for example, was looking for the right mutation and exploiting it.
In recent years selective breeding has undergone a revolution. Now that people can look for specific genes, it's possible to better understand the genetic mechanics behind what was previously trial-and-error.
So yes, I agree there's a difference. I also agree that you have to be careful with new tools. Still, all the techniques involve changing the genetic makeup of populations. Some are more effective than others.
If I was Monsanto's competitor, could I legally produce and release roundup-resistant weeds to nullify the benefits of roundup-ready soybeans?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
When I moved to an urban area, I recognized instantly that I was lowering my environmental impact. I do not drive, I take up less land, and I take advantage of economies of scale for shipping and distribution of goods. I also have more options for recycling and co-op purchasing. Environmentalists are opposed largely to suburban sprawl that destroys habitats, wastes water for lawns, and makes mass transit impractical.
Brand writes off environmentalists' opposition to GM crops and nuclear power as romantic, but an environmentalist would just as easily paint his glowing portrait of these technologies as naive scientific idealism. It's unfortunate that Brand is unwilling to see the highly rational thinking behind environmentalists' opposition to GM and nuclear power.
Food and power "shortages" are in large part economic, which is to say they're a distribution problem, or ultimately a political problem. As an environmentalist, I do not see an inherent or immediate need for GM crops or additional nuclear power. I'm aware that we could already feed everybody on Earth with existing agricultural technologies, but we lack the political and economic will. Further, I do not trust corporations sponsoring genetic research. They are motivated by profit, not by environmental conservation, and will gladly wipe out everything that can't sue them on their way to profitability.
Environmentalists have already seen corporations do massive damage to the environment, and there is no reason to believe that corporations have changed in any way. 50 years ago, scientists were using the same food shortage arguments to back the introduction of pesticides, hormones, and chemical fertilizers into the food chain. I would rather not see a repeat of DDT with GM crops, and as corporations gain legal impunity, I see no reason to trust them or the scientists in their employ. Rather, I would like to see an emphasis on organic, sustainable farming, with a slow, balanced introduction of GM species after careful scientific peer review and heavy governmental oversight. Unfortunately, we do not currently have the political structure to provide trustworthy governmental oversight of GM foods, and until we do, it would be better in my opinion to hold off.
As for nuclear power, there are better options that have been ignored or underfunded in favor of GE's and MIT's pet projects. Whether it's tidal generators, solar, wind power, or bioenergy, I think it's worth focusing first on technologies that don't produce toxic wastes that will be around for thousands of years and can be used to make weapons, no matter how "safe" they are. It's not that nuclear energy is heresy, it's that it looks like a poor stopgap measure when we're on the way to genuinely sustainable power. Rather than invest in a nuclear power problem, it would be better to promote sustainable power and conservation in the meantime.
It has now become a vicious cycle, but you cannot downplay the role that corporations have played, and chalk it all up to some socialistic conspiracy.
Brand's piece is long on rhetoric and short on information. It presents a breathless technological romanticism which ignores the difficulties in all of the "hopeful" proposals that he makes, e.g. the use of GM bacteria to attack invasive species. The problem of specifically targetting a host with a live organism and limiting it to that host is not likely to be solved any time soon. Not even if Brand waves the magic wonder wand of "GM" over it. The history of environmental remediation is littered with the introduction of live parasites which would supposedly prey upon the unwanted pests, cause a population crash and then die out with the pest. Environmental remediationists are now trying to figure out how to get rid of the live parasites which are doing just fine and have _adapted_ and _evolved_. GM is a solution looking for a problem: the favorite supposed problem is the worldwide food shortage. This supposed shortage is a distribution problem. It is caused by deliberate economic manipulation by the developed nations. I don't have the time to go into the problems with his lauding of the automobile as now being some sort of wonder vehicle because the yuppie-next-door is able to get 30mpg in her Prius. Overall a fairly unimpressive article that would fit in well with the anti-scientific, irrational technological fetishism of middle-class liberals that don't want to admit that there are hard societal problems to solve.
The deal that is proposed lets wind mills be built and their is no fee or tax, just a blank check for a well-connected company to build hundred of windmills in a very public waterway.
There is a give-away to a well-connected few and just because it is wind power doesn't make it a good idea.
Why can't I build a windmill in Nantucket sound, or anyone? No, the powers that want the Nantucket sound windmill plan want it to go to private interests who will be given a very sweet deal.
It is a bad deal for Massachusetts.
If you're against wasteful use of land, read up on the LVT. And if you think it's a good idea, let your elected officials know. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself.
The effects of Land Value Taxation
The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey
The Wal-mart opposition is quite varied. The opposition is on sexism grounds (men get paid more in every position - regional vice presidents make twice as much; also, the higher the rank, the fewer the women - regional vice presidents are only 9% female); on labor grounds (they're radically anti-union, to the point that they've closed entire stores to block unions); on pay/benefits grounds (the majority of its employees live below the poverty line); on political grounds (Wal-Mart gives heavily to Republicans, and actively supports right-wing political causes); and a host of other issues. Furthermore, not all big companies are despised; for example, CostCo is typically viewed as a socially responsible alternative - they pay their workers very generously by comparison.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
Lets take Helsinki Energy as they are about as good as it gets in the field:
f it s.html
t /heating.htm l
n g.htm l
h p
http://www.helsinginenergia.fi/en/tuotanto/bene
Heating:
http://www.helsinginenergia.fi/en/hea
Cooling. Rather than running AC:
http://www.helsinginenergia.fi/en/heat/cooli
88% overall efficiency in fuel usage. 90% reduction in electricity consumption due to Air Conditioning.
Instead of centralising your power station and then shipping electricity hundreds of miles, put generation near demand. If necessary gassify coal to allow cleaner generation.
In terms of a 100 year old technology, the first commercially run district heating system was in New York:
http://www.jamestownbpu.com/heat/history.p
BTW, it wasn't invented in New York. New York was the first commercial system. It isn't more common because coal and oil is increadibly cheap in America.
Deleted
but I assume the market is pretty good and finding the most efficient solution
Despite what Adam Smith and his intellectual successors say, there is really no proof that this convergence to efficiency exists. It is basically taken on faith and also what is efficient on one side may be inefficient on the other (e.g. in the short term energy producers save money, in the long term society or the economy loses due to increased cost and environmental degradation).
Also note that there is probably no true market economy on the planet. See the current energy bill making its way through congress loaded with tax credits and subsidies as an example of how the market economy gets distorted by politics. True free marketeers would let energy prices rise and let industry sink or swim on its own.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I wrote that as a joke, but thinking about it, it's true. SUVs are today's form of conspicuous consumption. "Look, I can afford to buy a huge, expesive, gas guzzling car! Look at Me!!" Its just the same as the European old school upper class who would eat until they threw up and then eat again. Vans have more cargo space than SUVs, and no one ever uses them to offroad. SUVs are all about the statement: I'm cool, I drive a big expensive car.
But Walmart... now that's one hell of a Mart!
Don't make me laugh.
First and foremost requirement for membership in a UN panel is agreement with the UN agenda.
In this particular case and in the case of Kyoto, the agenda is to redistribute the wealth of "first world" countries to "third world" countries.
Science has nothing to do with it.
The only "evidence" of global warming is your precious "computer models" comprised, conveniently enough, of proprietary code so that nobody can know what the true calculations are, just the magic result.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
It gives me just a bit of fear about how soon we'll have roundup-resistant weeds
They are already here, Roundup Ready resistant weeds have been found in the "wild":
Weed with Roundup immunity galloping across state
John Woodmansee4 0526/localnews/503241.html
Chronicle-Tribune, May 26 http://www.chronicle-tribune.com/news/stories/200
A herbicide-resistant weed that arrived in Indiana two years ago isn't standing still.
Marestail populations that are immune to glyphosate were first identified in 2002 in the southeast Indiana counties of Jackson, Bartholomew, Clark, Jefferson and Jennings.
LRecent field inspections by Purdue University researchers found the weeds in another 15 counties to the north and west, said Bill Johnson, Purdue Extension weed specialist.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides, including Roundup.
Indiana farmers annually plant millions of acres in crops genetically modified to withstand Roundup applications. This year alone, 88 percent of the state's projected 5.45 million acres of soybeans are expected to be Roundup Ready varieties.
"We had a few isolated fields in southeast Indiana that were showing poor control of marestail with glyphosate in 2001 and 2002," Johnson said. "By late 2002 we'd confirmed glyphosate resistance in four counties, and we highly suspected it in six additional counties.
"We did some extensive field surveying in the fall of 2003 and now believe we've found glyphosate-resistant marestail in about 19 counties, mostly in southeastern Indiana," Johnson said. "We've found it as far north as Wells County, as far west as Montgomery County and as far south as Perry County."
Marestail -- also known as horseweed -- is a thin-leafed annual weed that can grow to more than 6 feet tall if undisturbed. The weed produces seed in July and August but can emerge at almost any time during the year.
"This weed is problematic for a number of reasons," Johnson said. "First and foremost, the weed's biology allows it to behave not only as a winter annual but also as a summer annual. I'm convinced that this weed can germinate and grow any time the soil is not frozen."
He said the second reason marestail is troublesome is that it already has developed resistance to ALS inhibitors and triazines.
"So we're running out of effective tools to manage the weed," Johnson said.
Aceto-lactase synthase (ALS) inhibitors kill weeds by preventing them from producing essential amino acids necessary for growth. Triazine herbicides work by interrupting a weed's photosynthesis.
Marestail's ability to reproduce poses a third challenge, Johnson said.
"The seed of this weed spreads rapidly. Because it's so adaptable, the weed easily could become a predominant weed on our landscape, much as giant ragweed, giant foxtail and velvetleaf have done," he said.
Farmers are relying too much on glyphosate-based herbicides, according to Johnson. If farmers begin noticing glyphosate-resistant marestail in their fields, one option is to utilize 2,4-D in their burndown applications next year.
"We know that 2,4-D is very effective on these weeds, so farmers need to use it in their burndown if they have marestail in their field, regardless of whether they think it is glyphosate-resistant," Johnson said.
John Woodmansee is the agriculture and natural resources educator and director of the Purdue Cooperative Extension Office in Grant County.
Originally published Wednesday, May 26, 2004
FalconWeed with Roundup immunity galloping across state
Should there be a Law?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/so me_like_it_hot.html
Follow the money etc...if even some of this is true then things need to change. I hope more people read it to open some eyes