Here are a few questions that our intrepid and truth seeking journalists should be putting to Tony Blair and the pro-nuclear lobby. Feel free to copy them and post them off to whatever news source you use.
1 Do you understand that the rich uranium ores required by a new phase of nuclear power are so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within five years?
2 How can it be OK for us to develop nuclear power, and not OK for Iran and
North Korea? Yes, they are using it to make weapons, but that is precisely what we have done in the past, and may still be doing for all we know?
3 Is it right and fair that wind turbines have to carry fully comprehensive insurance for risks such as a blade flying off and going through someone's windscreen, yet nuclear power is insured to only less than 1% of the full cost of a Maximum Credible Accident?
4 Can you guarantee that terrorists will not attack one of our nuclear facilities, causing a loss of coolant and consequent Maximum Credible Accident?
5 Can we believe that the huge costs of a nuclear comeback will not suck funding away from energy conservation and renewables, which are, after all the only truly sustainable options on the table?
6 Most nuclear power stations are by the sea. How will sea level rises affect
your plans for decommissioning? At the moment the plan is to leave the radioactive cores in place, on the assumption that they will be dry. Does not sea level rise mean that you will have to move the core material up to higher ground?
7 How can you defend the ethics of our generation enjoying electricity for a few years, and committing our descendants to guarding our waste for thousands of years?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
David Unsustainable Willets
I heard David "Two Brains" Willetts, the Tory Trade and Industry speaker, describe nuclear power as "sustainable" on the Today programme this morning.
What a display of ignorance. Nuclear power could meet the world's electricity needs for up to 5 years with high grade ores. After that - huge cleanup costs.
When a major politician, widely regarded for the large size of his brain, is confused about the very term "sustainable", and his error goes unchallenged by the Today interviewers, what chance do we have of saving the environment?
What a display of ignorance. Nuclear power could meet the world's electricity needs for up to 5 years with high grade ores. After that - huge cleanup costs.
When a major politician, widely regarded for the large size of his brain, is confused about the very term "sustainable", and his error goes unchallenged by the Today interviewers, what chance do we have of saving the environment?
Sunday, November 27, 2005
More trees please Greenpeace
Just for a change, and to show that environmentalists are not immune from internal debate, I will take issue with Greenpeace International on their view of carbon sinks, here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/policy-corner-kyoto-protocol/cop9-backgrounder
Greenpeace writes regarding carbon sinks (the planting of trees, and other actions, to absorb atmospheric CO2) Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol certain kinds of land use change and forestry activities which can sequester carbon are allowed to be counted toward meeting emissions reduction obligations under the Protocol. The theory is that if a ton of carbon is stored in a tree (a so called 'sink' for carbon) and hence removed from the atmosphere, then a country would be allowed to add a ton of carbon to its allowed emissions of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels. This whole theory that creating 'sinks' in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions is, according to Greenpeace, quite wrong. Unfortunately, carbon stored in trees is not permanently removed from the atmosphere and there is a high probability that the ton of carbon counted as stored in the tree will find its way back into the atmosphere eventually. The result of this is that the burden of reducing emissions is simply shifted to future generations.
The main point, however, is that the use of sinks must not divert any political and financial resources away from the primary task: to reduce emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Sinks do not even "buy us time", as some have argued. If the industrialized countries do not achieve major emission reductions in the near term, we may lose our ability to avoid dangerous climate change, by anyone's definition. The goal of the Protocol is to reduce emissions, not to create mechanisms for avoiding reductions. Greenpeace seeks to minimize the use of sinks in the Protocol as much as possible, and notes that a number of countries have already pledged that they will not take advantage of this loophole.
GPI:"This whole theory that creating 'sinks' in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions is, according to Greenpeace, quite wrong."
RL: Well, not quite wrong. Not the theory. If there is a tonne of carbon in a tree, it has taken a tonne out of the air, which is good. Greenpeace is rightly anxious about its use in offsetting higher emissions, but we should be planting trees to absorb our historic emissions, and that as fast as we can, providing they are planted with the co-operation of local communities, and species which are native to the area, and suited to the excected climatic changes during the lifetime of the tree.
GP is worried that the tree may be burned, rightly, because that would return the CO2 to the atmosphere. However, if a tree is harvested and put to good use, to make a beautiful piece of furniture that will be cherished for hundreds of years, or to make a timber framed house that will stand for 500 years, then that CO2 is held down for that period of time.
So there is an advantage to ecologically sensitive reafforestation. It can reduce the atmospheric burden at least for 100 years while the forest is growing (mature forests are CO2 neutral). The forest may also contribute to beneficial climatic change locally, and may help with rainfall patterns.
And forests are good for our souls.
So - more trees please, Greenpeace.
Greenpeace writes regarding carbon sinks (the planting of trees, and other actions, to absorb atmospheric CO2) Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol certain kinds of land use change and forestry activities which can sequester carbon are allowed to be counted toward meeting emissions reduction obligations under the Protocol. The theory is that if a ton of carbon is stored in a tree (a so called 'sink' for carbon) and hence removed from the atmosphere, then a country would be allowed to add a ton of carbon to its allowed emissions of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels. This whole theory that creating 'sinks' in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions is, according to Greenpeace, quite wrong. Unfortunately, carbon stored in trees is not permanently removed from the atmosphere and there is a high probability that the ton of carbon counted as stored in the tree will find its way back into the atmosphere eventually. The result of this is that the burden of reducing emissions is simply shifted to future generations.
The main point, however, is that the use of sinks must not divert any political and financial resources away from the primary task: to reduce emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Sinks do not even "buy us time", as some have argued. If the industrialized countries do not achieve major emission reductions in the near term, we may lose our ability to avoid dangerous climate change, by anyone's definition. The goal of the Protocol is to reduce emissions, not to create mechanisms for avoiding reductions. Greenpeace seeks to minimize the use of sinks in the Protocol as much as possible, and notes that a number of countries have already pledged that they will not take advantage of this loophole.
GPI:"This whole theory that creating 'sinks' in forests, plants and soils, whereby carbon dioxide is taken out of the climate system to offset higher fossil fuel emissions is, according to Greenpeace, quite wrong."
RL: Well, not quite wrong. Not the theory. If there is a tonne of carbon in a tree, it has taken a tonne out of the air, which is good. Greenpeace is rightly anxious about its use in offsetting higher emissions, but we should be planting trees to absorb our historic emissions, and that as fast as we can, providing they are planted with the co-operation of local communities, and species which are native to the area, and suited to the excected climatic changes during the lifetime of the tree.
GP is worried that the tree may be burned, rightly, because that would return the CO2 to the atmosphere. However, if a tree is harvested and put to good use, to make a beautiful piece of furniture that will be cherished for hundreds of years, or to make a timber framed house that will stand for 500 years, then that CO2 is held down for that period of time.
So there is an advantage to ecologically sensitive reafforestation. It can reduce the atmospheric burden at least for 100 years while the forest is growing (mature forests are CO2 neutral). The forest may also contribute to beneficial climatic change locally, and may help with rainfall patterns.
And forests are good for our souls.
So - more trees please, Greenpeace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
