"My experiences in the contemporary academic setting since 9/11 have convinced me that the left, which controls that precinct, tends to offer one-sided, quasi-religious trumpetings of the sins of the United States and of American “empire” and its “quest for global domination”, while being unwilling to name and confront the reality of Islamofascism".
This summarises Thomas Cushman's critique of Barnett and Hilton's piece about democracy on openDemocracy. He is unhappy about the way many commentators make a moral equivalence between the Bush administration's actions in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and in the secret "renderings" of terrorist suspects for torture in third party countries, and in the succession of acts that take away ancient civil liberties in the name of fighting terror.
Remarkably for an academic, he asserts that Saddam's Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda, backing it with a link to a book by Frum and Perle. I would be grateful to read a summary of Perle's arguments, since it is the consensus view that Saddam and OBL shared only a mutual distrust.
Is it the case that we seem to criticise Bush more than we seem to criticise the terrorists? If so, I suggest that once we have condemned the terrorists' atrocities, which we do, and their fundamentalist line of thought, which we do, there is little more that we can do about Bin Laden. He and the jihadists are immune to reason, and we have no leverage on him. There is no point in ranting against him and his works. We support the policy of defending ourselves against him through police and legal action until his fires burn out, as they undoubtedly will.
The only thing that we can do is to try to stop our governments' responses from making a bad situation worse, by provoking frustrated young muslims to associate themselves with jihadists. And this, emphatically, is how we see the "war on terror", the bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the illiberal counter-terrorism measures enacted in our country.
Al-qaeda is an ugly, even a psychotic, phenomenon, but it will pass, just as the Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction, the IRA and all of the other terrorist organisations passed. By bombings such as the current outrage in Jordan, they will erode their support base. They kill many people, but then, so do our bombs and our wars. Thomas Cashman speaks of proportionality, but proportionally, the war on terror has killed a far greater proportion of the muslims population than the proportion of America's population that was killed on 9/11.
In the end, it is a question of judgement, not of logic. Some, mainly on the the right, are sincerely convinced that Al-Qaeda is the greatest threat that we face today. Most of us feel that it is one threat among many, and in comparison to the threat of climate change, he is a fairly minor one. Indeed, if we began seriously and constructively to address the challenges of environmental sustainability, there would follow a diversion of energy and attention away from hatred, jealousy and the arts and machinery of war. We need a major, "New Deal on Sustainable Development", a wave of construction and co-operation in pursuit of management of water infrastructure, food supply, habitat, renewable energy sourcing, and safe waste management throughout the world, beginning in the Middle East. If that were associated with a New Deal in terms of improved governance and equity, (mediated perhaps in part through the Index of Human Rights in the UN ) political psychopaths like Osama bin Laden might find themselves short of recruits.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
10 reasons that nuclear power is not the answer
At Laurie's request, here is the antinuclear argument in 700 words. It is only a draft at the moment, but I may be run over by a tram tomorrow, thats a good excuse for anything
NP does not provide an answer to global warming because:
1 Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not CO2 free
"The use of nuclear power causes, at the end of the road and under the most favourable conditions, approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly." -
ref:
http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen
2 Conventional NP offers an insignificant contribution to world energy needs
The finite nature of uranium reserves mean that a fourfold expansion of the world's nuclear fleet would exhaust the known global reserves of uranium. It would produce maybe 5% (maybe less)of the world's energy needs for some thirty years, then that would be it.
3 Fast Breeder technology means uncontrollable nuclear weapons proliferation
The plutonium-driven fast breeder reactors could make a more significant
contribution, but this would mean kissing goodbye to any notion of
preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorists, because there would be so much plutonium around, there is no way we could keep it from falling into the hands of terrorists.
4 NP possession now implies Nuclear War later
No country has developed nuclear weapons without first having a nuclear power programme. That is what the fuss is about in Iran and North Korea.
If we have weapons, we will almost inevitable using them at some stage. America has already used them once, on the Japanese.
5 NP is not economic - and is not insured
Greenpeace has calculated that nuclear power stations are insured for only about 0.01% of the total value of an MCA (Maximum Credible Accident).
6 Routine discharges of radioactive materials cause cancer
There is a vast amount of writing on this subject, but it is not necessary to develop it here, since it could be argued that a few local cancers are a small price to pay if nuclear power saves us from the catastrophe of global warming, and the relatives of the cancer victims could be compensated. The low level Radiation Campaign is a useful site for this information: http://www.llrc.org/index.html
7 Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack
9/11 demonstrated the acute vulnerability of the structures of western civilisation to attack from terrorists motivated by suicidal religious convictions. We cannot hope that humane and rational considerations would inhibit terrorists from using the same technique on one or more NPS. It would be consistent with the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda to do this kind of high profile action. It is a moot point whether a jumbo jet would breach containment, but it would certainly disrupt the coolant circuits sufficiently to cause releases, and a critical incident (major meltdown) cannot be ruled out.
8 The waste problem is not solved
Some nuclear wastes have radioactivity that remains dangerous to human and animal health for 250,000 years. What right do we have to dump that problem on our descendants for the sake of a few years worth of electricity?
9 Nuclear power stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise
They are mostly built near the sea, for cooling and waste discharge purposes.
10 NP would suck funding away from the real long term solutions which are energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Nuclear power was developed through massive state subsidies as part of the nuclear weapons development programme. These R+D costs are not included in conventional nuclear power costings. In the UK, these expenses were hidden from parliamentary inspection in the post-war public accounts as "Repairs to Public Buildings". NP was a spin-off of the nuclear weapons effort.
The NP programme died off in the 90s, ironically not so much through the activities of the green lobby as through the policies of Mrs Thatcher, who although a staunch supporter of NP, insisted on privatising it. When the City took a look at the books, they did not like what they saw, and decided not to buy into it.
NP does not provide an answer to global warming because:
1 Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not CO2 free
"The use of nuclear power causes, at the end of the road and under the most favourable conditions, approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly." -
ref:
http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen
2 Conventional NP offers an insignificant contribution to world energy needs
The finite nature of uranium reserves mean that a fourfold expansion of the world's nuclear fleet would exhaust the known global reserves of uranium. It would produce maybe 5% (maybe less)of the world's energy needs for some thirty years, then that would be it.
3 Fast Breeder technology means uncontrollable nuclear weapons proliferation
The plutonium-driven fast breeder reactors could make a more significant
contribution, but this would mean kissing goodbye to any notion of
preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorists, because there would be so much plutonium around, there is no way we could keep it from falling into the hands of terrorists.
4 NP possession now implies Nuclear War later
No country has developed nuclear weapons without first having a nuclear power programme. That is what the fuss is about in Iran and North Korea.
If we have weapons, we will almost inevitable using them at some stage. America has already used them once, on the Japanese.
5 NP is not economic - and is not insured
Greenpeace has calculated that nuclear power stations are insured for only about 0.01% of the total value of an MCA (Maximum Credible Accident).
6 Routine discharges of radioactive materials cause cancer
There is a vast amount of writing on this subject, but it is not necessary to develop it here, since it could be argued that a few local cancers are a small price to pay if nuclear power saves us from the catastrophe of global warming, and the relatives of the cancer victims could be compensated. The low level Radiation Campaign is a useful site for this information: http://www.llrc.org/index.html
7 Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack
9/11 demonstrated the acute vulnerability of the structures of western civilisation to attack from terrorists motivated by suicidal religious convictions. We cannot hope that humane and rational considerations would inhibit terrorists from using the same technique on one or more NPS. It would be consistent with the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda to do this kind of high profile action. It is a moot point whether a jumbo jet would breach containment, but it would certainly disrupt the coolant circuits sufficiently to cause releases, and a critical incident (major meltdown) cannot be ruled out.
8 The waste problem is not solved
Some nuclear wastes have radioactivity that remains dangerous to human and animal health for 250,000 years. What right do we have to dump that problem on our descendants for the sake of a few years worth of electricity?
9 Nuclear power stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise
They are mostly built near the sea, for cooling and waste discharge purposes.
10 NP would suck funding away from the real long term solutions which are energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Nuclear power was developed through massive state subsidies as part of the nuclear weapons development programme. These R+D costs are not included in conventional nuclear power costings. In the UK, these expenses were hidden from parliamentary inspection in the post-war public accounts as "Repairs to Public Buildings". NP was a spin-off of the nuclear weapons effort.
The NP programme died off in the 90s, ironically not so much through the activities of the green lobby as through the policies of Mrs Thatcher, who although a staunch supporter of NP, insisted on privatising it. When the City took a look at the books, they did not like what they saw, and decided not to buy into it.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Preventing a Pandemic - in brief
I have just put this up on H5N1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The probability of a "humanized" form of H5N1 Avian flu emerging through recombination in the body of a human co-infected with avian and seasonal influenza could be reduced by a programme of seasonal influenza vaccination of at-risk poultry workers. It is not clear at this point whether vaccine production could be stepped up sufficiently to meet this demand.
If an outbreak of pandemic flu does occur, its spread can be slowed by increasing hygiene in aircraft, and by examining airline cabin air filters for presence of H5N1 virus. Air transport out of infected areas must be reduced to the absolute minimum.
Social isolation is one of the most effective ways of limiting the spread of influenza in the local population. Although virus particles are shed in the 3 days before the patient becomes ill, it continues for a week or more once illness begins. The public should be taught that it is anti-social to go out of the house when ill. Frequent hand washing and the wearing of effective masks can also reduce transmission.
The probability of a "humanized" form of H5N1 Avian flu emerging through recombination in the body of a human co-infected with avian and seasonal influenza could be reduced by a programme of seasonal influenza vaccination of at-risk poultry workers. It is not clear at this point whether vaccine production could be stepped up sufficiently to meet this demand.
If an outbreak of pandemic flu does occur, its spread can be slowed by increasing hygiene in aircraft, and by examining airline cabin air filters for presence of H5N1 virus. Air transport out of infected areas must be reduced to the absolute minimum.
Social isolation is one of the most effective ways of limiting the spread of influenza in the local population. Although virus particles are shed in the 3 days before the patient becomes ill, it continues for a week or more once illness begins. The public should be taught that it is anti-social to go out of the house when ill. Frequent hand washing and the wearing of effective masks can also reduce transmission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
