Scary environmentalism
- Thread starter mark a.
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Simon E said:
Well, that is one response, and not an entirely irrational one. But what are you going to tell your grandkids?
Simon E said:
Time is never wasted, and the abandonment of apparently easy, flawed "solutions" is the first step on the road to real solutions. It's only really bad if you think that universal car ownership, regular foreign holidays, endless economic "growth", and lots of consumer toys are essential for life to be worthwhile.
Personally, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that all those things are in fact detrimental (or at least have detrimental aspects) and that the sort of changes we need to make to achieve a genuinely sustainable society are also the sorts of changes that will help people feel less alienated from each other and disillusioned with life in general. Sure, getting there is probably going to be a rough ride, but then again we have been living in exceptional luxury compared to the rest of the human race throught history...
Simon E said:
Just wondering... if we keep increasing our energy use, regardless of its source, won't we still be raising the temperature???
Anneke
Interesting announcement yesterday from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - They have moved the hands of their famous Doomsday Clock from 7 minutes to midnight to 5 minutes to midnight - partly because of the increasing threat of climate change. Normally the Doomsday clock moves because of nuclear threats.
For those who don't know about the Doomsday clock:
BBC Report
Board statement of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The end of their announcement is worth reproducing here...
"Turning back the Clock will depend on humanitys ability to think in new ways about how to cooperate to achieve common goals. We ask scientists, in the words of Eugene Rabinowitch, not to "retire in resignation and despair to their laboratories" but to publicly engage these issues and make their voices heard. And we implore governments to actively engage the scientific community for sound, nonpartisan technical advice. We urge immediate attention to climate change and caution those who believe nuclear energy is a problem-free solution. Finally, and most importantly, we call upon policy and opinion leaders, business and civic leaders, and the public to place the dangers of nuclear weapons at the top of their agendas for action.
More specifically, major progress toward a safer world would include:
- Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries;
- Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years;
- Greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program has provided an example of how even former adversaries can cooperate to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. Extending the principles of that program, including working side by side with other countries, establishing transparency, and initiating partnerships between government and the private sector to downblend highly enriched uranium, would be constructive;
- Disavowing the development of new nuclear weapons and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). To date, the CTBT has been ratified by 137 nations, but notable holdouts include the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel;
- Stopping production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities. The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be taken up by the nuclear powers as a major step toward achieving this goal;
- Engaging in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. As a means of addressing the threats from climate change, nuclear power should be considered as an alternative energy source. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves. As such, any contemplation of the expansion of nuclear power must be predicated upon a thorough assessment of the technological and legislative safeguards required to curb these risks;
- Providing nuclear fuel for energy production in ways that drastically reduce the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. A number of arrangements have been proposed, beginning with the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan of 1946. More recent plans have called for international consortia that would oversee the production, distribution, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials;
- Implementing stricter controls over trade in and shipment of nuclear technologies and materials. Harmonizing domestic laws across countries and enforcing these uniformly, as required under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, would be a step in the right direction;
- Building on the strengths and successes of the IAEA by giving more authority to the agency to monitor and inspect nuclear facilities worldwide and by providing more financial and staff resources. The agency already has shown that it can effectively dismantle nuclear weapons programs and monitor internal developments over a period of years, as it did in Iraq from 1991 to 2001. It has proven its capacity and should be rewarded and its programs expanded;
- Providing meaningful international fora to spur innovative solutions that halt nuclear proliferation and provide blueprints for radical reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. The NPT Review Conferences could provide such an ongoing forum, if nuclear weapon countries would recognize the benefits of this institution for impeding the spread of lethal technologies.
The terrible and still unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons led Albert Einstein to observe, With nuclear weapons, everything has changed, save our way of thinking. As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and at the onset of an era of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering.
The Clock is ticking.
"
For those who don't know about the Doomsday clock:
BBC Report
Board statement of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The end of their announcement is worth reproducing here...
"Turning back the Clock will depend on humanitys ability to think in new ways about how to cooperate to achieve common goals. We ask scientists, in the words of Eugene Rabinowitch, not to "retire in resignation and despair to their laboratories" but to publicly engage these issues and make their voices heard. And we implore governments to actively engage the scientific community for sound, nonpartisan technical advice. We urge immediate attention to climate change and caution those who believe nuclear energy is a problem-free solution. Finally, and most importantly, we call upon policy and opinion leaders, business and civic leaders, and the public to place the dangers of nuclear weapons at the top of their agendas for action.
More specifically, major progress toward a safer world would include:
- Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries;
- Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years;
- Greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program has provided an example of how even former adversaries can cooperate to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. Extending the principles of that program, including working side by side with other countries, establishing transparency, and initiating partnerships between government and the private sector to downblend highly enriched uranium, would be constructive;
- Disavowing the development of new nuclear weapons and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). To date, the CTBT has been ratified by 137 nations, but notable holdouts include the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel;
- Stopping production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities. The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be taken up by the nuclear powers as a major step toward achieving this goal;
- Engaging in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. As a means of addressing the threats from climate change, nuclear power should be considered as an alternative energy source. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves. As such, any contemplation of the expansion of nuclear power must be predicated upon a thorough assessment of the technological and legislative safeguards required to curb these risks;
- Providing nuclear fuel for energy production in ways that drastically reduce the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. A number of arrangements have been proposed, beginning with the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan of 1946. More recent plans have called for international consortia that would oversee the production, distribution, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials;
- Implementing stricter controls over trade in and shipment of nuclear technologies and materials. Harmonizing domestic laws across countries and enforcing these uniformly, as required under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, would be a step in the right direction;
- Building on the strengths and successes of the IAEA by giving more authority to the agency to monitor and inspect nuclear facilities worldwide and by providing more financial and staff resources. The agency already has shown that it can effectively dismantle nuclear weapons programs and monitor internal developments over a period of years, as it did in Iraq from 1991 to 2001. It has proven its capacity and should be rewarded and its programs expanded;
- Providing meaningful international fora to spur innovative solutions that halt nuclear proliferation and provide blueprints for radical reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. The NPT Review Conferences could provide such an ongoing forum, if nuclear weapon countries would recognize the benefits of this institution for impeding the spread of lethal technologies.
The terrible and still unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons led Albert Einstein to observe, With nuclear weapons, everything has changed, save our way of thinking. As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and at the onset of an era of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering.
The Clock is ticking.
"
Similar threads
