John Gray on science and climate change

C

crackerjack

Well-known member
tryptych said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2243980,00.html

Bit suprised he doesn't talk about the alternative - less people on the planet - especially as that seemed to be his position in "Straw Dogs"
Click to expand...

He brings it in at the end:

Green activists, free-market economists and religious fundamentalists may not seem to have much in common, but they are all agreed there can be no such thing as overpopulation...
Actually, the perennially unpopular Rev Thomas Malthus was closer to the truth when, at the end of the 18th century, he argued that population growth would finally overtake food production. Industrial farming was supposed to make famine impossible. But it turns out to have been heavily dependent on cheap oil, and with farmland being lost as a result of the switch to biofuels, limits on food production are re-emerging. Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The last sentence is quite telling:

It would be ironic if, because of their irrational hostility to high-tech solutions, the greens were to end up as much a threat to the environment as George W Bush.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should have a 'nuclear energy: yea or nay?' thread.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I think he misunderstands Malthus and misrepresents "green activists, free-market economists and religious fundamentalists" -- there is no shared consensus between those three groups regarding overpopulation.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy said:
I think he misunderstands Malthus and misrepresents "green activists, free-market economists and religious fundamentalists" -- there is no shared consensus between those three groups regarding overpopulation.
Click to expand...

You just resent being grouped with hippies, don't you? ;)
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
The last sentence is quite telling:



Perhaps we should have a 'nuclear energy: yea or nay?' thread.
Click to expand...


I find it impossibble to have aan opinion because I''m scientifically unqualified. I mean, the way things are (oil running out, climate change) it looks like a no-brainer, but, yunno, I've seen Edge Of Darkness man :eek:
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
I find it impossibble to have aan opinion because I''m scientifically unqualified. I mean, the way things are (oil running out, climate change) it looks like a no-brainer, but, yunno, I've seen Edge Of Darkness man :eek:
Click to expand...

Isn't the most worrying thing about nuclear power the fact that the technical expertise is very limited now, so even if we did decide that we wanted nuclear power of some sort, the human capital required would take years to replenish?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy said:
Isn't the most worrying thing about nuclear power the fact that the technical expertise is very limited now, so even if we did decide that we wanted nuclear power of some sort, the human capital required would take years to replenish?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this - that if lots of scientists decided to work in creating and maintaining a new wave of nuclear power, we wouldn't have enough to...well, what exactly? Put men on the moon again, take care of ageing nuclear stockpiles?

I think nuclear, suplimented by renwables wherever possible and combined with the application emmission-reducing technology to conventional power stations, is the best course of action over the short to medium term. That's in terms of generating electricity, of course; there's also the question of reducing consumption, which can be a lot less tokenistic than some people claim if you can get big business involved. A lot of companies that rent large office space leave all their lights on overnight, for instance - tackling a single instance of this sort of wastage would be equivalent to getting hundreds of households to improve their energy efficiency.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
I think nuclear, suplimented by renwables wherever possible and combined with the application emmission-reducing technology to conventional power stations, is the best course of action over the short to medium term. That's in terms of generating electricity, of course; there's also the question of reducing consumption, which can be a lot less tokenistic than some people claim if you can get big business involved. A lot of companies that rent large office space leave all their lights on overnight, for instance - tackling a single instance of this sort of wastage would be equivalent to getting hundreds of households to improve their energy efficiency.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% on nuclear energy being the best short-term (or even "medium-term) viable option for reducing emissions and conserving energy in general.

Surely once the demand for nuclear physicists raises the supply will as well? Just like the supply of IT professionals rose exponentially after the internet became common in U.S. households in the mid-late 90s.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Indeed: if the jobs are there, and they're competitvely waged, qualified people will take them.

What nuclear energy *really* needs, though, is an army of crack PR experts to convince the public that another Chernobyl* isn't going to happen - in addition to the engineers needed to ensure that it won't!


*though interestingly, that particular disaster was due to politicians ignoring and overriding the scientists running the reactor - it wasn't a technical error at all
 
E

Eric

Mr Moraigero
Mr. Tea said:
*though interestingly, that particular disaster was due to politicians ignoring and overriding the scientists running the reactor - it wasn't a technical error at all
Click to expand...

I thought it had to with politicization of the process: the scientists/technicians were unable to tell their superiors that there was an actual problem, and so it could not be addressed?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Mr. Tea said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this - that if lots of scientists decided to work in creating and maintaining a new wave of nuclear power, we wouldn't have enough to...well, what exactly? Put men on the moon again, take care of ageing nuclear stockpiles?
Click to expand...

Er, I mean that if we wanted to create a new generation of nuclear power stations (for example), then we would have to find the technical capability from somewhere, because there aren't that many people with knowledge kicking around any more. It's been the subject of plenty of studies (e.g, the NPC Hard Truths About Energy report).

Indeed: if the jobs are there, and they're competitvely waged, qualified people will take them.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt that the turn-around will be so simple -- "let's recreate our nuclear industry". "OK, me and brian will do it."
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
It's not that difficult to build nuclear power plants and run them. It really isn't. It's more a question of where the money will come from than where the scientific know-how will. There are plenty of biotech industry employed nuclear physicists in the U.S. who would jump at the chance.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
nomadologist said:
It's not that difficult to build nuclear power plants and run them. It really isn't. It's more a question of where the money will come from than where the scientific know-how will. There are plenty of biotech industry employed nuclear physicists in the U.S. who would jump at the chance.
Click to expand...

This sounds right. The French (I believe) have been predominantly nuclear for ages.

I can't imagine the know-how has been lost - presumably people keep notes :slanted:
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
This sounds right. The French (I believe) have been predominantly nuclear for ages.

I can't imagine the know-how has been lost - presumably people keep notes :slanted:
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "know-how". The question is, where is the human capital going to come from? You can't just pull it out of your ass, any more than the energy industry in general can make up the projected shortfall in its workforce by saying, "ah well, drilling for oil's not that hard."
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Eric said:
I thought it had to with politicization of the process: the scientists/technicians were unable to tell their superiors that there was an actual problem, and so it could not be addressed?
Click to expand...

Well it probably amounts to the same thing, in a country like the USSR where you'll Damn Well Do What You're Told, right? The engineers running the reactor, like all competent engineers, knew what was and what wasn't a safe level to run their machine at - orders came down from on high that power output had to increase in order to meet that year's energy quota or whatever, and such orders were not to be gainsaid.

A good example of a 'targets culture' gone awry, perhaps!
 
G

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
vimothy said:
I'm not talking about "know-how". The question is, where is the human capital going to come from? You can't just pull it out of your ass, any more than the energy industry in general can make up the projected shortfall in its workforce by saying, "ah well, drilling for oil's not that hard."
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, I missed this completely. Is Vimothy proposing some kind of economic planning is in order here? Did a squadron of pigs just soar overhead?
 
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
There is not a need for vastly lower population worldwide. There is a need for less, or more sustainable, consumption by rich people.

The man is obviously a tosser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top