Radio EcoShock Host Alex Smith

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

11 posts / 0 new

http://www.kboo.com/sites/default/files/episode_audio/kboo_episode.2.150...

Radio Ecoshock Host Alex Smith on the Long Hot Summer and Climate Change

August 12, 2015 As North America roasts, and Iran hits 163 degrees F, 74 C. - shocking climate news behind the scenes in this hour long interview of Alex Smith originally broadcast on KWMR Community Radio, Marin County California, July 27, 2015.

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Meanwhile Thom wants to bury The Only Solution = Nuclear Energy.

Yep, Thom will do lots with his pixie power fantasies - in his dreams.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

Meanwhile Thom wants to bury The Only Solution = Nuclear Energy.

Yep, Thom will do lots with his pixie power fantasies - in his dreams.

So you think we should trade annihilation from climate change for annihilation from radiation poisoning? No thank you. If we can't figure out a better alternative than producing deadly waste that remains toxic for thousands of years and that cannot be disposed of but must be contained by every generation of man from now until the end of time then we'd better just chuck it in.

It is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.[3] In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).[142] On-going costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[142] Much of the current cost relates to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.

A significant economic impact at the time was the removal of 784,320 ha (1,938,100 acres) of agricultural land and 694,200 ha (1,715,000 acres) of forest from production. While much of this has been returned to use, agricultural production costs have risen due to the need for special cultivation techniques, fertilizers and additives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures".[139] On 21 March, the first restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of contaminated items.[140] As of July 2011[update], the Japanese government was unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation's food supply. Radioactive material was detected in food produced in 2011, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 320 kilometres from the plant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

You think we should build more of these time bombs? Nuclear power is, by far, the most expensive way to produce electricity and that's without including the environmental devastation and human death and suffering from nuclear accidents. Reducing carbon levels from fossil fuels may take hundreds of years but radioactive waste is, for all intents and purposes, forever. The use of nuclear power is an atrocity and advocating nuclear power is absurd.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

Chernobyl was a soviet military reactor without containment and in violation of at least three stringent IAEA required protocols for ALL commercial reactors, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with commercial nuclear power. Even so, only 52 deaths and possible 4000 highly treatable cancers later in life. Vs 7 million coal, oil, gas & biomass deaths - real deaths not possible - every year. And Banqiao hydro dam failure ~200,000 deaths and vast areas of land & communities destroyed. $10B hardly bankrupted the Soviet Union, Belarus & Ukraine love Chernobyl because of all the international funding they get to clean it up - to radiation levels far below background levels at many natural places on the planet.

Fuku was a dumb screwup, trivially easy to prevent, but zero deaths. Vs 20 thousand deaths & homes for 300 thousand wiped out for the tsunami, Japan did not properly prepare for. Land area contaminated around Fuku temporarily & mildly is less than one permanent hydro dam reservoir in Brazil.

Your view is that after Titanic, all passenger shipping should be banned. After 9/11 all aircraft should be permanently grounded. After Bhopal, all chemical plants closed. After Banqiao hydro dam failure all hydro should be closed. And now a giant chemical plant explosion and fire in China, with at least 50 dead. Do you have any idea how many strong bioaccumulating carcinogens will be dumped into the air, water and land from such an explosion & fire? Makes Fuku look like a bad rainy day. The MSM never reports or fear mongers about that. Radiation is a known weak carcinogen, most of which doesn't bioaccumulate.

Nuclear is in fact easily the most environmentally friendly source of energy, that is obvious.

And most fossil fuel waste is forever and dumped with impunity into our air, water and land for us to breathe, drink & eat. The millionX lower quantity of nuclear waste is contained and has an effective life of ~300 years - and most of that is valuable material. The rest is almost entirely natural uranium with 1-2% plutonium all of which is worth 100's of $trillions of green energy burnt in GenIV reactors.

And in fact Nuclear is easily the cheapest source of clean energy and unlike the 2nd cheapest source, conventional Hydro, Nuclear is capable of replacing fossil fuels. Indian PHWRs are actually right now the cheapest source of energy on the planet.

Without cheap energy six billion people will die. Energy is life or death. So your choice: fossil or nuclear. Deaths per unit energy ~1000X lower with nuclear, including Fuku & Chernobyl. And very possible runaway global warming comes with fossil fuels, perhaps a few billion deaths. And Hansen has already predicted a 10 foot sea level rise in ~50 yrs, which will make all coastal cities vast money pits. And you gripe about tiny little Fuku. Make your choice, Fossil & Death or Nuclear & Life.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Without cheap energy six billion people will die. Energy is life or death. So your choice: fossil or nuclear. Deaths per unit energy ~1000X lower with nuclear, including Fuku & Chernobyl. And very possible runaway global warming comes with fossil fuels, perhaps a few billion deaths. And Hansen has already predicted a 10 foot sea level rise in ~50 yrs, which will make all coastal cities vast money pits. And you gripe about tiny little Fuku. Make your choice, Fossil & Death or Nuclear & Life.

False dilemma logical fallacy. Those are not our only options.

People all over the world are learning how to work with nature (Green Gold -- Documentary by John D. Liu), using our knowledge of biology and ecology to evolve our own ecological consciousness in order to enhance nature's already proven 4 billion year long self generating capacities to make the earth habitable for complex species and the ecologies they thrive in. These practices are in some places turning deserts into green, self hydologized environments.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

What you have is a fantasy belief in something that at best is too little too late. Are you seriously going to try telling me it is even remotely realistic that your eco-pipe dream is going to occur anywhere near a time frame to avert global catastrophe i.e. water shortage, debt ceiling -> severe capital shortage, energy shortages, fertilizer esp phosphorus shortage, climate change -> drought/sea level rise/runaway global warming, oil wars, water wars, mass migrations of populations, poverty & starvation -> rape & pillage of the environment?

I do believe much more sustainable agricultural practice is feasible, and indeed human habitats can be much better designed to integrate with nature harmoniously. I'm all for that. Although without access to vast amounts of cheap, high EROEI energy, it is highly dubious that the Earth can sustain more than a billion people. It is easy to wave your hands in the air, citing superficial analysis, without a serious and fundamental energy accounting these schemes are nothing more than idle conjecture.

There are many analysis that support the infeasibility of supporting the large population of the Earth without vast cheap energy inputs.

http://energyskeptic.com/category/fastcrash/carrying-capacity-fastcrash/...

http://bergenokologiskelandsby.no/Members/Kjetil/okonomi/EROEI-society.pdf

http://energyskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/societys-hierarchy-o...

And what is being done is trivial in scope, we can't even stop the massive growth in monstrously idiotic biofuels that cause vast eco-destruction, use as much fossil fuel inputs as they replace and take upwards of a 1000 gals of precious water to produce on lousy gallon of biofuel. Madness. All your fantasy would do is preserve the burn-baby-burn status quo and all that entails, when the crash happens it will be brutal, and contrary to ecotopian dreams it is likely to result in a new and ugly militarism, a heyday for Genghis Khan type warlords, who could give a damn about the ecology.

So setting aside pipe dreams. the only real option we have within time and economic constraints, is a rapid build-out of nuclear power. Do that and you will be able to incorporate more sustainable and ecological agricultural and human habitat experiments. Otherwise we must endure all the destruction, suffering & ecological devastation that our fossil fuel driven world economy will bring, for however long we can sustain that. Time is running out.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

What you have is a fantasy belief in something that at best is too little too late. Are you seriously going to try telling me it is even remotely realistic that your eco-pipe dream is going to occur anywhere near a time frame to avert global catastrophe i.e. water shortage, debt ceiling -> severe capital shortage, energy shortages, fertilizer esp phosphorus shortage, climate change -> drought/sea level rise/runaway global warming, oil wars, water wars, mass migrations of populations, poverty & starvation -> rape & pillage of the environment?

I wouldn't waste my time telling you or anyone anything. I'm pointing out that your two options aren't the only ones. You're manufacturing a false dilemma. Anyone who doesn't see that might get hysterical. I see it and I won't.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

.ren the only thing hysterical here is my hysterical laughter that anyone could be so gullible to believe your permaculture fantasy will solve the energy/emissions/climate change dilemma. There is no false dilemma because you haven't managed to come up with even one alternative that is viable and practical.

You aren't even talking energy production, your fantasy scheme is entirely based on improved energy utilization predominately in the agricultural field, which is just a small part of total energy consumption.

Now permaculture sounds like an excellent method to improve agricultural sustainability and resource utilization but it will not and cannot do much to solve the energy dilemma. China is the #1 country for permaculture methods, highly successful according to your video, but their energy consumption is rising explosively, mostly dirty coal, with GHG emissions out of control. And disasters like the recent chemical plant explosion commonplace - makes Fuku look like a bad rainy day.

So sorry, you are wrong. The dilemma remains. Fossil or Nuclear on the energy production side. On the consumption side, yes there are lots of things that can be done to improve efficiency, including your permaculture, but that doesn't change reality.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Reply to #8

Your version of an energy dilemma has to do with the current mass, system-wide hysteria to preserve what's emerging as an unsustainable industrial civilization as it's facing a global meltdown. Many believe the technology that created this mess can also fix it. I have my doubts. We have a ten thousand year history of the Collapse of Complex Societies to inform my doubt. All complex societies share one basic factor: unsustainability in their fundamental organizing principles. Those who can't imagine beyond a techno fix for this version of complexity seem destined to think in false dilemmas.

If folks were to take preserving the unsustainable with yet more applications of energy and technology out of the equation, let the fear and deep hysteria of that loss go, all sorts of new things could begin to appear.

I don't have any fantasies that the majority will see this.

But the options are there. Another choice is therefore there. A choice that does work. It is working where it's being applied. It's working without fossil fuels, without nuclear energy, without participating in the global economic system that demands all that energy for infinite growth production to feed an infinitely growing human population while so many other species are dying off.

In places scattered here and there, some humans are bringing back the damaged land and living with revived ecologies. It's happening... if not fast enough to keep up, still, it's happening. Look or don't.

Like I said, I'm not trying to tell you anything. It's there for the looking if anyone wants to look. I can provide links to permaculturalists who are already making new ecologies out of industrial (including industrial agriculture) wastelands, and new, potentially sustainable (perma) cultures based on and within those ecologies. They work.

My bet is that if anyone's left when this version of global civilization collapses, it will be those folks. They'll have the skills and the know how to make it with whatever of the biosphere is left to support them, if there happens to be enough. They won't need any experts to tell them how to live.

For starters, anyone with any interest can find plenty of accessible videos on the internet. Certainly not just those two videos I randomly picked from a huge list I've compiled. One of those I picked that you didn't mention was about a location in the Jordan desert near the Dead Dea. If you'd happened to have watched that Greening the Desert video, Jordan could easily been the capital of permaculture in your mind, because it's been amazingly successful in one location there.

I don't know what you'd have come up with if you'd watched all of Liu's documentary. I'm guessing you didn't, because besides that project in China it also weaves in projects in Africa, South America and Lawton's desert projects in Jordan.

I know of no nation that has adopted permaculture as a national practice. Certainly not China. That's completely your invention.

But then, nation states are a kind of new invention in our species' career. I can see a lot of disadvantages that go with their recent invention. People lived just fine without nation states before they evolved in our current world system, as well as they lived just fine without fossil fuels and nuclear power. Maybe they will find a way to do so again. Who knows?

Do I envision the world turning to permaculture? Don't be so easily a fooled by a suggestion. Or so easily threatened about your nuclear energy cause. I'm just pointing out an option that could be an alternative to mass suicide. An option that's something other than going back to the stone age as so many think the other option to be.

This is merely a species-based intentional evolutionary option that takes advantage of so much we have learned about our home, planet earth, that no people in the stone age actually knew in this way. At least I know of no evidence that shows where our ancestors have actually worked by design with the biology of the earth to enhance it. To help it flourish. Where it failed them, they simply moved on. That certainly includes our recent industrial civilization ancestors, only moving on with this survival strategy is becoming a bit of a problem.

Permaculture design is not my invention nor my "scheme." I happen to know about it. That's all. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't give me credit where credit isn't due.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Consumption, consumption. That seems to be the problem doesn't it? The outsized appetite to consume. What this country alone throws away in food daily would keep another country alive and well fed. Consume consume, and consume everything in it's path. Throw it away and consume some more.

The big thing that's different about this civilization, when it falls it seems determined to take everything else with it. The land will be barren, with the oceans and atmosphere filled full of garbage.

How many million years of evolution will/is go/going down the drain with this 'civilization?

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

This civilization is participating in evolution- it is not apart from it.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system