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.
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
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
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.
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.
And what are those real alternatives pray tell? Not solar power, wind power, conservation - that rickety tripod of enviromentalist dogma. Your statement that Uranium availability is in decline is absurd. The same Chicken Little arguments were used by environmentalists in the '70's about oil, and came to nothing. Uranium is still in plentiful supply on the Earth's surface and, for the very long term, in asteroids.
It is good to see environmental pseudo-science challenged in articles like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"nothing renewable comes close to the energy return of fossil fuels or nuclear (at current production)."
Am I the only person to have noticed the success of wind power these days?
Current state-of-the-art wind turbines (1.5+ MW) are able to compete with other power sources on equal terms (and before you rant about PTCs, Production tax credits, remember that other power sources also receive massive direct and indirect subsidies). I don't know how you calculate your "energy return", but I hope you include e.g. for nuclear, the astronomical cost of decomissioning, which can be greater than the cost of running the plant for the whole of it's lifetime.
Wind power has the potential to fulfill a great deal of our energy needs. Denmark, for example, already gets 20% of it's energy from wind power.
It's unfortunate that older wind projects like Altamont Pass have given so much bad press. Newer projects, and especially offshore wind farms are much easier on the eye and on the environment. e.g. A Vestas V90 3MW turbine pays for itself energetically within the first 7 months of its 20 year rated liftime.
And anyone who says that reducing energy consumption is not part of the solution has lost touch with reality. This is the same sort of person who has maxed out all their credit cards, has massive debts and doesn't intend to reduce their spending. (Did someone say National debt, Mr. Bush?)
However much energy we produce, we will always be able to consume it all if we waste it. And the expense is no barrier - if there is oversupply in our market economy, the price falls. So energy saving schemes must always be part of the solution.
What about coal? From what I have read without breeder reactors we have about 50 yrs worth of uranium left. Coal on the other hand gives us 500. I know we have all been indoctrinated since grade school that coal is dirty, but scrubbers can be used to get out most of the stuff other than CO2. Nuclear power is also not the only option for generating hydrogen. Using the water-gas shift reaction you can get H2 from coal. 500 yrs gives use alot more time to come up with something better.