James 'Gaia' Lovelock: only nukes can halt global warming

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

James 'Gaia' Lovelock: only nukes can halt global warming

Postby proldic » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:46 pm

'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' <br><br>Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says.<br> <br>His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith...<br> <br>Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>among the first researchers to<br>sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect. He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing<br>Street in April 1989.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001.<br> <br>On that basis, he says, there is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>simply not enough time</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm.<br> <br>He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2 [PD's EDITORIAL NOTE: Big lie here. The entirety of the extraction, refining, and nuke fuel reprocessing cycle creates immense CO2 emissions] can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of<br>nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition.<br> <br>In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of extreme heat<br>in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming.<br> <br>These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. Important among the reasons<br>is "the denial of climate change in the US, where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed".<br> <br>He compares the situation to that in Europe in 1938, with the Second World War looming, and nobody knowing what to do. The attachment of the Greens to<br> renewables is "well-intentioned but misguided", he says, like the Left's 1938 attachment to disarmament when he too was a left-winger.<br> <br>He writes today: "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."<br> <br>His appeal, which in effect is asking the Greens to make a bargain with the devil, is likely to fall on deaf ears, at least at present.<br> <br>"Lovelock is right to demand a drastic response to climate change," Stephen<br> <br>Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. "He's right to question previous assumptions.<br> "But he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer. Nuclear creates enormous problems, waste we don't know what to do with; radioactive<br>emissions; unavoidable risk of accident and terrorist attack."<br> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/">www.independent.co.uk/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: James 'Gaia' Lovelock: only nukes can halt global warmin

Postby marykmusic » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:05 pm

Like my husband, Dragon, wrote earlier on the Exopolitics thread about MUFON, much of the environmental movement is riddled with Agents whose job it is to see that real solidarity is never acheived.<br><br>Chalk up a big Agent point for Lovelock.<br><br>I wonder when he was turned? The Gaia hypothesis is wonderful and a basis of my world-view and spiritual life... --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

..

Postby wintler » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:36 am

Of course Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis was just a restatement of a world view common to many indigenous cultures - just cos he's (gone?) wonky doesn't make it any less true.<br><br>There is and will continue to be a big push for nuclear on climate change grounds, regardless of the fact that mining, refining and shipping uranium, and building, running and decommisioning nuke reactors are very emission-intensive activities. There is NO evidence that nukes are any sort of low-emission solution, never mind the unsolved waste and weapons proliferation issues (which i thunk can be better described as intergenerational terrorism).<br><br>But when has a lack of evidence ever stopped Power? <br><br>NVDA, shareholder activism & community engagement tho, THEY'VE stopped Power before.. <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ..

Postby Seventhsonjr » Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:51 am

Bullshit/ Utter nonsense and malinformed victim of Halliburton's etc propagnda.<br><br>Nukes are killing us globally<br><br>PLEASE educate yourselves on this at:<br><br><br>www.radiation.org <br><br>for info<br>and I have much more <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seventhsonjr>Seventhsonjr</A> at: 9/25/05 8:52 am<br></i>
Seventhsonjr
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

FEMA says evacuation from a nuke incident is nigh futile.

Postby Watchful Citizen » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:11 pm

When I was searching up FEMA documents related to Katrina I found a FEMA advisory on distribution of iodine tablets near reactors as is done in Europe to protect the thyroid from cancer-inducing isotopes.<br><br>FEMA wrote that a surprise radiation release can travel 10 miles in 2 hours with almost no wind and evacuation is almost impossible.<br><br>The only precaution they recommended was iodine tablets since a 1995 paper on the effects of Chernobyl showed that thyroid cancer in people who were age 1-14 at the time and up to 50 miles away skyrocketed, especially in Belarus where no precautions were taken for 6 days after the release and despite the low rems of radiation that those people were exposed to.<br><br>Thousands of cancers. <br>50 Miles away. <br>Low exposures.<br>And that was 10 years ago with more dead since.<br><br>Now, do we really want more of these radiation factories making carcinogens that last a million years? <br><br>Or do we take our chances with the weather? <p></p><i></i>
Watchful Citizen
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Gone wonky?

Postby marykmusic » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:13 pm

Hey, it's also called "turncoat."<br><br>And yes, ALL the indigenous cultures felt this way about our Mother.<br><br>No nukes is good nukes. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

which would you prefer ....

Postby maggrwaggr » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:16 am

Okay, folks, which do you prefer, burning coal on a massive scale, or nuclear power?<br><br>Because it's gonna come down to that.<br><br>Both are terrible choices. <br><br>But if you're looking at global warming as the biggest threat, then burning coal is just throwing fuel on the fire.<br><br>We're running out of choices here. The clock keeps ticking.<br><br>You know they're gonna burn SOMETHING. Whatever they can get their hands on. <p></p><i></i>
maggrwaggr
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:59 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest