Looking forward to this show! I recently graduated from NYU with a B.A. in environmental studies and I have come to the same conclusions regarding energy and GE foods, which met with much resistance in classroom debates. I hope for a new green revolution as much as anyone, but we can’t remain entrenched in the environmental dogmas of the past, there is no time left for idealism.

Every advocate of nuclear power, be he Stuart Brand or George Bush, must be prepared to address two things:

1. Liability – - Current law (the Price Anderson Act, as renewed) sets an unreasonably-low corporate liability for a major accident. After that it’s up to the Feds to cover the cost of the loss, and we saw how well THAT worked in New Orleans. To make matters worse, private insurance is unavailable. Recently my wife and I wanted to buy a house in Newburyport, MA, near the Seabrook nuke plant. We cancelled the deal when we were unable to obtain insurance against a nuclear accident. N.B. that earthquake insurance is easily and cheaply obtainable in this area even though it has a similar statistical profile to nuke accidents: low probability and high regionally-concentrated impact if is does occur.

2. Waste Storage Nuke advocates are fond of talking about all the things we could do with nuclear waste – land-based, sea-based, vitrification, blah, blah. But the fact is that we currently haven’t implemented ANYTHING. As long as a permanent solution to waste-disposal remains pie-in-the-sky, so too should any new nuke plants.

A few evenings ago I attended party at new house being built by a couple of friends of mine. It was a big party and the whole house was lit up like a Christmas tree. Not only that, but since the house isn’t quite finished the couple are still living in another house on the same property and through the windows you could see lights on there.

An extravagant waste of energy? Mindless lack of concern for global warming? In the words of John Wayne’s Jacob McCandles, “Not hardley!” Every watt of it was supplied by batteries in the basement which had been charged by solar panels on the roof earlier that day. Even the food was cooked on a modern (induction) electric stove. When they’re not having parties they sell electricity back to the grid.

In recent years solar photovoltaics have crossed an important barrier – they now produce much more energy over their working life than it took to manufacture them. Not only that but costs have been falling dramatically.

To the problem of nuclear waste…

The nuclear waste issue is being held up by politics much more than technology and research needs. Yucca Mountain funding has just been completely cut, even after decades of research shows that it was the best option for long term dry cask storage, the same dry casks that withstand being hit by trains. As for reprocessing, it was banned by Jimmy Carter in the 1970′s to curb nuclear proliferation, however both France and Japan are currently reprocessing.

Much like other forms of green technology, the U.S. has simply fell in the technology race, but it was because it chose to embrace fear and paranoia in 1979 instead of funding research and taking a nuanced approach.

Personally, I’d much rather have to deal with the relatively small about of nuclear waste than the fly ash, smog, CO2, and residuals coming from coal that have lead to poisoning our rivers and changing the climate.

My biggest concern about GM food is that we don’t know what the long term consequences could be to our health. I know some of the claims are about feeding people throughout the world, but again, what are the consequences? Could we have sickly poor folk worldwide held in the thrall of a few companies with the patent on the only food they can get?

Lilya, I posted two times this morning that were scrapped en route. Help, my umbilical cord! Then I decided to post without giving the specific link from up top and it went through. Mysteries of cyberspace.
I want to hear about population from Brand. Size of.

This idea that cities can be better for the environment makes much more sense to me than typical environmentalist claims.

It seems that many of the claims of the “green” movement have more to do with fashion than evidence based reasoning.

The only thing I would say is that we need to start thinking about limiting the size of cities. We also should do something to plan cities so that they can provide living spaces of respectable size and affordability. The relative cost of living does not reflect environmental costs between urban life and rural life.

- Dan

Since when has environmental quackery qualified as pragmatism? Brand should be cited for littering, because he’s is peddling garbage.

We have been asking the wrong question on nuclear power….

Instead of arguing about how dangerous it is….we should be thinking…

No matter how dangerous nuclear may or may not be….is it any more dangerous then what we are doing now….??

thank you for listening to my thoughts….sno

As for the oft-repeated dogma that GMOs will feed the increasing population, I have to wonder how many of those people repeating that mantra have a meat-centric* diet. Shift the global focus from meat-centric diet to plant-based foods, and you can not only feed the hungry, but will have plenty of food left over – all without the help of GMOs. People should do some research into the humongous resources that go into producing one pound of meat as well as the waste produced, and compare that to plant-based food offering the same amount of calories and nutrition, and whether from an environmental point-of-view, investing such resources into a meat-centric diet is wise, or whether it is prudent to not have meat reflect the true cost of the resources that go into producing it (negative externalities).

* I define “meat-centric diet” as one where meat is the principal food for getting nutrition, and plant-based food is an afterthought.

Nuclear radiation is EXTREMELY dangerous to us. To put it bluntly, it punches holes in our aura (etheric bodies) and is one of the leading causes of early onset Alzimers. We do not have the scientific instrumentation to detect the finer layers of the physical world…. we only know about solid, liquid and gas physical states. There are actually 4 more physical states that are finer than gas – an nuclear raditation is very dangerous to those.

This is one of the reasons that we see a lot of UFO activity around nuclear plants, etc.

We must move away from nuclear NOW.

Bioengineering is a one way street. Once humankind begins to manipulate the natural systems that govern the planet, there is no going back. It is pure audacity to believe we understand the web of life enough to attempt engineering it around ourselves. Without changing the behaviors that brought us this far, bioengineering will only hasten the deterioration of world society and quicken a gruesome downfall.

I will trade the radiation risks for the known pollution associated with coal. We have to move past carbon base-load power production. People are injured and killed aver day from coal.
We all talk about the desire for a sustainable planet, most of all, we want to live forever. With the reality we are mortal we give up on any action that cost us personally.
Ray Tucker
Somerset KY

What are Brand’s views on sustainable agriculture?? If you’re pro GMO, you are also supporting conventional agriculture, mega-farms here in Iowa that are polluting, destroying the soil, and destroying rural communities. Sustainable agriculture practices can build soil organic matter to sequester carbon and help solve the problem of global warming. But the current agricultural system in the united states does not support sustainable methods.

I agree with Brand that the earth will survive, with or without humans, but what of it? Our current momentum shows us taking earth well beyond its ability to even carry a human population of 1 billion. Given this, I find it too irresponsible to assume that it will not hurt global ecosystems further to plant all kinds of genetically modified food crops.

Brand is dead on. The idealism of the past has absolutely no chance of survival with the younger generations. Technology and the comforts of society are built into their behavioral patterns, and they will not give it up. Using science, instead of advocating for reversion to primitive ways, is the best path to harmony between the modern world and nature.

I am one who witnesses such subtle and amazing phenomenon as the late-winter migration of aquatic mayfly nymphs upstream. I am in awe and wonder of small things that may well be beyond our comprehension.

The idea that we can manage nature “well” is naive and ludicrous. Brand should know better than most that this is, ontologically, impossibile.

People on this planet will only survive if they put their hands back into the cool earth and strive to really understand it for themselves.

Your panelist did not address the caller who asked about the horrendous health effects of radiation from nuclear power plants. Please ask him to respond to this serious issue which is so ignored.

Richard P. did not have a zero carbon footprint. He had a pilot fly in supplies (food, gunpowder, clothes, paper, film, etc.) Some of those items require construction and operation of industries.

I think, and deeply regret, that Mr. Brand is probably right that we are beyond the point of preserving anything like the biosphere we inherited and will move into more and more artificial (and, in sense, inhuman) lifestyles. Far too many people with far too many demands. (Factor of ten). One of the consequences of this is an eroding of individual freedom.
One recent report suggest that for many animals, the species life span is down to about a century, rather than the normal million(s)– required for normal evolution and replacement. (We have discovered evolution, only to wreck it). Although we are not literally paving the planet, the psychology of where we are going was probably captured in the (off stage portion of) the movie “Silent Running.”
Mr. Brand’s logic on genetic engineering is flawed and and example of the more general flaw in his thinking. By accelerating rate of changes by factors of ten or more, and making possible changes that were essentially impossible in the old breeding methodology, we have a change in kind. If he can’t see that he is truly blind.
We may well be forced (or believe we are forced) to the kinds of massive interventions (for example atmospheric sulfur dioxide injection), but we can expect horrendous unintended consequences from such huge and only partly predictable actions. (Although incongruent, it is not entirely irrelevent to think of the unintended consequences — up to the level of the wrecking of nations — of the drug dabbling of the 1960s. Maybe this would have happened anyway, but surely less quickly.)
All of this kind of finesses the consequences the human augmentation and possible solid state replacement.
Mr. Brand sounds somewhat somber. So should it be.

Bernard B

I suspect that the nuclear question is actually a rather small part of the big picture. It has been suggested that if we ever go to breeder reactors, the use of potential bomb material will expand our police state. (Although I wonder pollution of stocks with Pu 240 has potential as a fix.)

Bernard B

How many jobs would be created and how much energy will be saved by putting solar hot water heaters on the roof of all suburban houses? Put carbon cap and trade with the end consumer and they will reduce their energy usage. We have a residential energy picture of past and current use. Start by giving lower rates for people who reduce their energy usage.
Ray Tucker
Somerset Ky

Mr Brand – and the many new politicians who support nuclear – have missed some crucial points, some of which Amory Lovins made. I won’t repeat Mr. Lovins arguments but will add the very serious waste disposal and terrorism.

Additionally there are two other HUGE problems with nuclear:

1) it is far from carbon free – uranium is not a concentrated ore and requires enormous amounts of fossil fuels to mine and refine and, perhaps most importantly,

2) there are only a few decades of the high grade uranium needed to fuel reactors. After that we simply have a huge mess to clean up and still the energy problem will persist.

We need to think beyond the nuclear issue to the greater problem that we have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet and we MUST start to live within our means. Until we do, we will keep making bad decisions – and promoting nuclear power is at the top of that list.

Thank you Bill McKibben!!! I hope the media starts to cover climate change in a manner that reflects the urgency of the situation. I don’t understand why the major news outlets haven’t been doing a countdown to Copenhagen and reporting on preparations for the talks more extensively as well as sharing the alarming climate science that is emerging every day.

This lack of relative coverage has made it difficult for climate activists to be taken seriously by people who don’t realize how grave the situation is. We need your help Tom Ashbrook and WBUR!

Your guest today with a philosophical view of increasing nuclear power uses the “Science of Crap”. We are currently emitting crap into the atmosphere, water, and land that we can measure. “Background radiation” which is adjusted annually at all nuclear plants, is like resetting the nuclear odonomer so we don’t have to measure the crap that is nearly impossible to measure. The science of nuclear power is this: We know that radiation causes disease, death, and mutation for generations of human beings to come. Your guest’s quick shuffle away from the subject of worker disease and death is apparently the science of pollsters, since workers were positive about their work. We may stop climate change with nuclear power and at the same time kill our species with genetic disease and mutations. These are the scientific facts of nuclear power.

Stop behaving like the nice guy, Tom. Get tough with anyone who claims to be only espousing science while at the same time demonstrating a philosophical view.

If energy is what your focus is on the link below is about energy devices past and present that are being ignored by the mainstream energy producers ,because it would make energy so cheap it would displace the current energy producers.

http://hubpages.com/hub/ENERGY-INDEPENDENCE

In WWII I was an x-ray technician exposed lots of radiation with little protection. Later I assisted with the rebuilding of the highly radioactive cyclotron at Los Alamos and then repeated the process with the MIT cyclotron while a graduate student. In the meantime, I have been involved with the use of radioactive materials in medical research. I am now 82, vigorous, and mentally active inventing and developing medical instruments.

What concerns me is the sad plight of coal miners and the people that live anywhere near coal processing and burning plants. The amount of unhealthy material being discharged and leaking into ground water (including heavy metals like uranium and thorium) is huge.

While wind and sun are laudable, we still need a baseline of continuous power generation. This is best done by increasing the current percentage of nuclear power in the mix — electric cars are great but not if their electricity comes from CO2-belching coal plants spewing pollutants over the land.

As for the environment the chemical companies are producing poisons that is harming the water and soil and human health in countries that utilize them.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Pesticides-can-they-be-safe-to-drink

I don’t have time to read all of these posts and I could not hear all of toeday’s program but I did not hear or see any questions of the canard that Nuclear energy engenders no greenhouse gases. It’s true that while up and operating nukes don’t emit greenhouse gasesbut according to jounalist, Karl Grossman,writing in EXTRA magazine(published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)the nuclear fuel cycle invovling mining, fuel enrichment, refining, and waste disposal is very carbon intensive. Given the amount of nukes ,we would need to meet projected energy needs nuclear energy could exacerbate the the climate crisis. Of course given that Stewart Brand is a PR flak for the industry , we would not expect him to reveal that. Furthermore,if I remember correctly he has a foinacial interest in a compnay that stands to profit from a nuke revival.

I think the world (China and India) that is so quick to blame the USA will beat us to green solutions if at all possible. Issues of pride are at stake. I’ll have to check out Sal’s links. I want to hear what the next international conference surfaces, though I suspect Big Corporations will have Bigger Voices there than they deserve. Governments don’t want to offend their big taxpayers: “Don’t tread on me” says Old Energy.
As to Iran’s nuclear energy plans, I think if they are the evil empire (which I don’t), they will poison themselves (see the warnings in this thread). I like Iranian people, but if they could keep this experiment to their extremists somehow, I’ll keep quiet and not warn them.

Isn’t coal subsidized by not keeping streams and rivers clean? If coal had to provide a waste disposal system like we propose for nuclear then it would cost ten times as much. Coal ash impoundments won’t last 100 years never mind the 10,000 years planned for Yuca mountain. Look at the waste from ore to proper disposal for each. Coal releases more radiation when burned than nuclear. We should beat our nuclear weapons into power plants. There is not a easy answer but small (100 megawatt) underground nuclear located at current coal plants could clean up base-load power with less pollution. It could use steam turbines already in service.

I have first hand experience (from parents) with the fear that comes from nuclear energy. I’m gen. X and I don’t share the fear because I was too little to fully understand the consequences of events like Chernobyl and 3 mile island. Fear is a powerful thing and I know that to this day my parents are still somewhat anti-nuclear energy because of their experiences all those years ago. Changing minds takes a lot of time, but what helps is to look at problems like energy production for 6 billion people in an honest way like Stewart Brand. The fact is that wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources will not fulfill the need for continuous power we as a human race have come to demand. So we have a choice between nuclear and coal to make up the slack. For me the choice is clear, but whenever I bring this up with parents they get hung up on trying to figure out how to provide 6 billion people with solar energy or some other form of renewable energy.

As for sustainable living, I also agree with Brand. Living in a 3 bedroom house with a yard and pool may be the american dream, but it just isn’t sustainable for the human race. Living in small spaces contained within superstructures where everything is shared -such as apartment complexes in Hong Kong- are the greenest thing we as people can do. The problem is that no one currently living in a house or aspiring to live in one wants to hear that. The problem is that many people currently into the “green” fad are wealthy individuals who are living the unsustainable american dream already and who figure that putting some solar cells on their roof will sufficiently offset global warming if “everyone just did that.” To those people I pose the following question: Where do you propose to put all the people in China and India that’ll one day want to have their own plot of land with a pool and a 3 bedroom house???

Living in small spaces contained within superstructures where everything is shared -such as apartment complexes in Hong Kong- are the greenest thing we as people can do.

Really? Check out this Wikipedia article about air pollution in Hong Kong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Hong_Kong Actually the EPA recently issued a report about air pollution in Boston that was pretty damning, too.

Proposing urban lifestyles is a lot like proposing nuclear power – it’s based on the assumption that we’ll have solution to problems that we haven’t been able to solve yet. I’d be all for nukes if the abovementioned liability and storage issues were addressed. Likewise I’d be all for urban life if someone could come up with an urban environment that was livable.

I go to my nearest large city, Boston, every so often, and it’s like an insane asylum with smog. Noisy, congested, dirty, crime-ridden, smelly, beggars on the street – yuck! I often have to take the MBTA and share my personal intimate space pressed-up against complete strangers, their noses dripping with the exudate of unknown diseases, unpleasant smells of body-odor, halitosis, and unhygenic body parts wafting up, kids playing their iPods so loudly that their earbuds are like PA speakers, and trying not to stand too close to the weirdo who just got on conversing in a loud voice to the God that he hears in his head.

And then there’s the everpresent DIRT in the air! Recently, coming back from jury duty at the Federal Courthouse I got off at Park and decided to walk to Harvard Square for exercise. Then I went home. There I discovered that my collar was BLACK and I could take a piece of cardboard and scrape off a thick layer of black sludge by just rubbing it on my skin! I can work ALL DAY cutting and splitting logs in the woods in back of my house 35 miles northwest of Boston and not get nearly that dirty!

I agree that “managing nature” is pure hubris; humans have been trying to do so for many, many years, to no avail (and that is being forgiving and kind-spirited in my characterization toward humans). Tom even mentioned at the outset of the show ideas of manipulating the seas and skies, etc. Considering our track record of proceeding without understanding consequences, being greedy, and so on, I shudder to think of these as “solutions.”

Brand was being disingenuous through most of the show, and as much as he kept spouting the need to rely on science–and was quick to mention his “biologist” credential–his presentation was very dismissive of scientific information that did not support his opinions and only really alluded to scientific data to support his opinions.

In response to Lloyd Hart’s call, he asked if anyone other than his father had gotten sick. He dropped that quickly (but it was obvious where he was going with that!) then tried using the “study” of people who live near nuclear power plants reporting they were happy as “evidence” that it is completely safe. This sounded more like a questionnaire sent out by the power company and not data; it would be giving that too much respect to even call it anecdotal data!

Toxic waste from nuclear power wasn’t even discussed. Nor were any of the problematic processes along the way of nuclear power, from mining for uranium to potential for nuclear meltdown. Perhaps the latter is remote, but it has happened twice (on a scale large enough to be reported). Nuclear power is expensive; I don’t see it as a great saviour albeit better than coal-fired power plants. AND…what was that by commenter David Vielmetter about just put nuclear waste in the ground where no one lives as a solution???? That sort of thinking is the diametric opposite of fear: it’s putting one’s head in the sand!!!

I was aghast at Brand’s flippant remark about genetically engineered food and how it is no different than, as he put it (sorry, this is a paraphrase) no different than what has been happening for the last ten thousand years! And he wants everyone ELSE to rely on science?!?!?! Nature’s adjustments over thousands of years–and even human involvement in cultivation is not quite the same process. GE food isn’t necessarily troublesome to ingest (although certain enzymes missing that help absorption of nutrients mean inferior food); it’s bigger problem has to do with upsetting the delicate ecosystem. If one pest is absent from the chain, its predator is absent and so on. Some of those “pests” are beneficial to the ecosystem. Not to mention how GE seeds are the product of companies like the Monsanto corporation who use Pinkerton tactics from the robber barons’ golden days to ensure no seeds are saved by growers. They also “ensure” that growers only use their pesticides and schedules. Large purchasers of food, i.e., McDonald’s (the largest purchaser of potatoes in the world), for example, work with Monsanto and their ilk to make growers “conform” to industry “standards.” Agribusiness is about as corrupt and dangerous as an industry can get, and Brand thinks this is the way to go for the future? He reveals his true nature in this program.

I am an organic gardener who runs a small niche landscape company which practices only organic methods and uses tools that do not require fossil fuels. I practice seed saving. This practice is as old as human kind. It is a way of keeping the seed stocks strong, ensuring future generations of healthy varieties of plant material. This is very different than genetic engineering, so Brand is being intellectually dishonest when he says GE is part of an age old process. He full well knows the difference.

Brand is hawking his book, which is no different than his other purely capitalistic endeavors. Nothing sells like controversy, and he realized this a long time ago; people just have misinterpreted who he really is until now.

Brett, Thank you for the most right on posting I have read on this topic, though I admit to not reading them all.
For anyone reading this from Louisville Ky, or are planning to be here this Saturday, come to the Great Lawn on the waterfront and join our 350 Climate Action, 2:15 til 5:30, forming “350″ and a Fluer-de-Lis with ourselves and an aerial photo to post on http://www.350.org! Check that fabulous site if you haven’t yet.
Thank you Bill McKibben, James Hansen, and our dear own Wendell Berry for all you do to bring attention and action to this problem, and hopefully, to all of us for solutions.
Bob Bush

I’m reposting this because I screwed up the editing of my prior post. Why oh WHY doesn’t OnPoint provide a discussion forum with modern editing capabilities? I’m active on many forums and this is the only one with no editing features. It’s ironic that we’re talking about applying advanced science and technology to our problems but OnPoint can’t seem to offer even current technology to its forum. The admin should feel free to delete the earlier one.

My point was that while it’s true that ecologically you’d be more green if you lived in a densely populated city, that it certainly isn’t a popular choice for most…especially to those of us who are used to have our personal space while commuting to work and tending to our gardens and living on a sizable plot of land.

This implies that it’s just a matter of what we’re used to or familiar with. My point was that crowding, noise, pollution, crime, dirt, antisocial behavior, etc, are intrinsically bad, unpleasant and/or unhealthy. Numerous studies have shown that noise, pollution, crowding and stress have bad health effects.

Read up on the first and second generations of Jewish, Italian, and Irish immigrants in New York City who, in the 1940’s and 1950’s left the City to move into the suburbs. They were familiar with city life but they moved out because, well, they were familiar with city life.

As far as nuclear waste is concerned, we do have a solution for the waste: put it in a hole in the ground in an unpopulated secured area.

That’s not a solution, it’s an idea for a solution. I’m OK with people having ideas for nuclear plants, too. My point above is that before we build any more real, operating nuclear plants we need to have a real, operating waste solution.

Brand was trying to compare human cultivation of plants [some evidence has been revealed to indicate the practice goes back 10,000 years; but, considering humans go back almost 200,000, I'll bet the practice is older, even accompanying hunting and gathering incidentally] to modern genetic engineering. Genetic mutations have occurred in nature without any help for as long as the earth has had vegetation. It is how plant material evolves and develops resilience to insects, diseases, and even larger animal destruction. Human cultivation has historically used natural methods such as seed saving and hybridization using cross pollination. (These practices increase plant strength and species longevity.)

Modern, genetically engineered food is way, way different (these practices produce essentially a mutant that will become inferior over time). Aside from not knowing the long-term effects of GE food, we already know scientifically that the food is inferior; we already have evidence that certain species of insects have disappeared; we have sneaking suspicions that the alarming absence of bees may be partly attributable to GE food production; we already have ecological alarms/red flags. We also see a calculated and manipulated opportunity for two or three chemical companies to rule the world of agribusiness and dictate everything that happens on large, commercial, unsustainable farms that will also eventually be owned by just a couple of companies.

GE practices are not good for humans and other animals. And if cows are to be eaten, they ought to be fed grass NOT CORN anyway!

Brand knows all of this all too well.

As to “city,” there are three town/cities within about 10 miles of me that have been voting whether to go with city or town government, given that their population has hit the threshold. I’m surprised North Adams gets to be a city with 14,000. A city has an elected mayor. Easthampton recently became a city. It still has mayor numero uno in place. Amherst voted to remain a town, I believe, with population more than doubled when UMass is in session. Greenfield, another small city.
Cities this size are more vulnerable because of less diversification, and have to pool resources, just as towns do, in order to function efficiently. The layer of county government used to do more of the pooling but is now pretty vestigial.
There has been a kind of evolution where a quiet town with a minimal center gets publicity, attracts people seeking houses less costly than in Boston or NYC, the quiet town becomes an expensive suburb (then city), and then people seeking less costly houses move further out, and so on.
This is all determined by economics, not by sustainability. Developers are not early adopters of future-think. Cities and towns are merely trying to keep their budget balanced for another year. When I feel crowded and financially pinched, I don’t find the 21st-century city, or those I find are also getting yuppified, and although my city needs tax-paying industries, it’s considered paradise by its people. If you can find us, you are welcome.

I would like to hear Mr. Brand’s opinion of the Hyperion Power Module.

Mr. Brand has left the building.

WRT the HPG – it doesn’t exist. At least not yet. The company claims they might have one by 2013. Until then it’s just pie-in-the-sky.

I’m impressed how clear thinking Stewart Brand is on the subject of the way forward to the future of civilization. Nuclear energy technology has evolved to make this approach among the important medium-term solutions to clean energy. There are no problems with nuclear energy that cannot be solved by appropriate research. As far as genetically modified foods are concerned, the point has been made that this is being done in nature already. How else will there to be enough food to meet the needs of a continually growing global population where improved economic conditions – and potentially improved health and longevity thanks to Genetic Modifications – will significantly increase demand for a wider variety and amount of foods.
Thank you Stewart Brand for taking such a controversial stand on these subjects. Those who are schooled in so-called political social correctness need to listen to the logic of your message and reconsider some of their positions. Their futures may depend on it.

The number of hungry people in the world rose to 1.02 billion this year, according to the United Nations, despite a 12-year concentrated effort to cut the number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22food.html?hp

The other thing Mr. Brand forgot to mention is how Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds are making farmers in third world countries broke and destitute.

In 2007 farmers in India sued the company.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4778.cfm

‘As far as genetically modified foods are concerned, the point has been made that this is being done in nature already. How else will there to be enough food to meet the needs of a continually growing global population where improved economic conditions – and potentially improved health and longevity thanks to Genetic Modifications – will significantly increase demand for a wider variety and amount of foods.’ -Bob Rager

You have some misconceptions, Mr. Rager. Natural genetic “modification” that occurs in nature happens very gradually, over a long time, based on the natural need for the plant to overcome its weak elements that might inhibit its ability to survive and thrive. In simple terms, the plant modifies itself to keep on keeping on. Genetically “engineering” seeds for a plant is an artificial process designed to make the plant repel a particular pest or mutate so it can be immune to certain specified diseases, all without regard for ecosystem disruption concerns. The plant is being manipulated by external forces that are not concerned with the strength of its species through stronger seed stocks. Seeds aren’t even saved because seeds are artificially engineered. The artificial process is not designed to create a more nutritious food, nor is the process necessarily concerned with variety.

‘Those who are schooled in so-called political social correctness need to listen to the logic of your [Stewart Brand] message and reconsider some of their positions.’ -Bob Rager

This is a kind of straw man approach. You are reducing any opposing opinion to nothing more than ‘political social correctness.’ And judging by the tone of your comment being a kind of Stewart Brand admiration society, your “position” seems more like idolatry. Your only point that seemed remotely thoughtful was about problems with nuclear power being solvable. True, at least I believe this is also true; however, the larger problem, based on your Stewart Brand’s urgency issues, is that those problems currently exist with no solutions in sight. 


Fossil fuel plants cause 25,000 deaths in the US alone ANNUALLY, and are the leading single cause of global warming (40% of US emissions). Western nuclear power plants have never killed a member of the public or had any measurable impact on public health. Nuclear also has negligible impact on global warming. There are some environmental impacts from uranium mining, but they are much smaller than the impacts of coal mining, let alone coal burning, and are similar to the impacts of gas extraction.

All scientific studies on the overall external (i.e., public health and environmental) costs of various energy sources concur that nuclear’s health/environmental impacts are tiny compared to fossil fuels, and similar to renewable sources (www.externe.info/).

Studies have also been done on the overall net CO2 emissions (global warming impact) of various energy sources, including all aspects of the generation process (i.e., ore mining, fuel processing, plant construction, plant decommissionong, waste management, etc..). Such studies conclude that nuclear’s overall net CO2 emissions are 2% of coal’s, 5% of gas, and equal to or less than renewables.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

Long term uranium supply is not an issue. We have enough uranium for 1000 years or more, even without breeding or recycling. With those things, the fuel supply is essentially infinite.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

Nobody has been ever killed or sickened by commercial nuclear power waste. Nuclear waste is not unique in terms of long term hazard. In fact, given their much larger volumes, less stable (leach-resistant) forms, and careless manner in which they are buried, most of our other waste streams actually pose a much larger health threat, over the very long term. Nuclear waste is the only waste stream for which we are required to provide scientific proof that it will never be a significant hazard, for as long as it remains toxic. Other waste streams are simply dumped. Nuclear is the ONLY industry that has solved its waste problem.

As for economics, renewables are much more subsidied than nuclear, and there is an absolute requirement for a specified percentage of renewables use (~20%), regardless of cost or practicality (i.e., an essentially infinite subsidy). Under any sytem where CO2 is capped and it is left to the market to decide how to respond, nuclear would do very well.

Finally, even nuclear opponents concur that the maximum subsidy (if any) from the Price Anderson Act is only ~0.04-0.4 cents/kW-hr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act), whereas the comparable “free pollution” subsidy given to coal is ~4-8 cents/kW-hr (www.externe.info/), i.e., 10-200 times higher.

Jim Hopf makes good points. As compared to coal, nuclear is much better. Coal, however, has a huge lobby. The economy has been coal-driven, and the physical costs are part of the American wallpaper. Nuclear, if it can displace coal, earns my great respect, because it is cleaner and does not cook the planet. If they can do that without throwing hundreds of thousands out of work, I’d step back and let them do it, but keep that industry on a leash. Be ready to pull back. Give them 25 years by which time we want something better. And you know what? People in this thread have said that nuclear cannot be up and running that fast, not in terms of permits and financing, not in terms of various things (laywoman’s effort here). So if they cannot be in place in time, how can nuclear be out of the way as well.
Why do I say nuclear has to be ready to bow out? Help me out here. I have a hunch.
Interesting that in this forum, a super and hard-hitting post is often followed up by just the opposite. It’s like watering down the brandy.

Western nuclear power plants have never killed a member of the public or had any measurable impact on public health.

The price and availability of insurance is based on assessments of risk. Insurance companies employ armies of statistical experts to do the math. Earthquake insurance is expensive on the west coast because risks are much higher. In Massachusetts earthquake insurance is cheap because they are less frequent and less strong.

A friend of mine in Littleton had $16,000 of damage to a chimney a few years ago from a 3.8 magnitude earthquake there. But no people in Massachusetts have been killed by an earthquake in even LONGER than no people have been killed by nukes.

So insurance against nuclear accidents should be cheap and insurance companies should be falling all over themselves to offer it if nukes are so safe because they could collect premiums and never have to pay out. So why couldn’t I buy nuke accident insurance a few years ago when I was thinking of buying a house a few miles from Seabrook?

And also why then doesn’t the government require nuke operators be to indemnified against the FULL cost of a nuclear accident? If we had an accident HALF as bad as Chernobyl at Seabrook or Pilgrim (Plymouth MA) the cost could be in the TRILLIONS because of all the businesses, population centers, and environmentally sensitive areas nearby. But by your reasoning the risk is statistically neglible so insurance and secondary market (reinsurance) rates should be low.

Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the insurance and nuclear industries don’t match your words.

How discouraging to hear a guest on On Point argue in favor of genetically engineered organisms using the tired and completely false statement that “we have been making these changes in plants since the beginning of agriculture”. The genetic engineering of food plants was not possible before the discovery of DNA since it involves moving the DNA of one species to that of another, and, in the process crossing natural boundaries in species that are meant to prevent this very thing! We are violating these boundaries without fully understanding the consequences. The entire technology is based on the assumption that each gene has one discrete, knowable, identifiable function and that it will not exhibit other properties when brought into combination with unfamiliar DNA. This theory has already been proven false. Not so long ago we were arrogantly talking about “junk DNA” simply because we didn’t understand it’s function.

There has never yet been independent testing of GMOs to determine their safety, there has been no public debate about their introduction into our food, about 70% of our processed food contains GMOs without any labeling, but about 90% of Americans would want that labeling. And studies which DID show the potential for serious health risks have been suppressed.

The genetic engineering of foods was an unnecessary technology in search of a commercial application. In spite of Monsanto’s claims, not one of their products is designed to increase yield, the seeds are engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s herbicides and pesticides. And, in fact, farmers are reporting decreased yields with GE seeds. This amounts to using an unsustainable technology, which, arguably, serves ONLY to control our food supply, to support an unsustainable agricultural system. No company which has 75 lawyers whose sole function is to sniff out farmers who are supposedly violating their patents can claim to be supporting sustainability.

Studies are increasingly emerging showing that smaller, diversified organic farms are more productive that huge monoculture operations. So: support your local farmers, read labels carefully to avoid GMOs and use your power as a consumer!

Great show – at the very least Brand provided an alternative way of thinking about what appears to be an impossible set of problems. Though I strongly believe in conservation, sometimes its’ advocates seem almost religious about it – allowing no alternative views. I also think Brand’s view is that many of his recommendations are risky but we don’t have much choice. I’m sure he knows the problems with genetically engineered plants, but today there are a billion or so people starving at any point in time (I don’t know the actual number, but I know it’s high). And this will only get worse, just like warming and other problems will only get worse.

One disagreement with Brand. He didn’t really address the question on population growth. He said it was leveling off at some very high number, but the point the caller brought up was how much an effect the current and projected size has on our world. My guess is he was taking the future 11 billion or so as a given. That may be true, but the impact of this number of people is rarely covered. I wonder how much any steps really matter when faced with this number of people.

Peter Nelson-
I fully agree with all of your comments entered at 10:33a, 10:53a and 11:03a.

Sylvia Davatz-
You have said with even more clarity what I’ve been saying. Thank you! I would add that another big problem with genetically engineered foods is one of contamination with natural foods during the growing period and even into the shipping phase. Potentially, GE foods can ruin all food on our planet.

Marc-
GE growing does NOT increase yields, and GE foods are inferior, so I would argue that world hunger will be increased, not to mention more disease.

And another thing – Amory Lovins is a fraud. If he had his way we’d all living in the dark, taking cold showers.

Don’t believe me? He says photovoltaics are cheaper and “decades more advanced” than nuclear. If that’s true, why is nuclear still 19% of U.S. electric supply? If photovoltaics are so cheap, why is there more (natural) gas turbine production installed every year than photovoltaic?

I agree to reproductive responsibility, but the idea of having it dictated or forced upon us by governments, corporations and NGOs(with what is manifesting itself as a more and more Satanic agenda). is a bit disturbing. Often this mentality leads to mass murder and genocide.

Sure, you can live off the grid and have plenty of power – if you’ve invested enough in the generating medium. It’s not that hard to grow more food than you can eat either, but that doesn’t mean that everyone growing their own food is the answer for a modern industrial society.

A 15 year breakeven for (subsidized) PV is equivalent to a 4.8% return. So even with a subsidy, most homeowners get less return on PV than if they just paid down their mortgage early.

Maybe someday PV will be competitive with fossil fuels, but it’s not now, and has never been done on any serious scale. Nuclear has been competitive with fossil for 50 years, and has had radical improvements to potential safety over the last decade.

Unfortunately, Stewart Brand exemplifies the hubris and
arrogance that has destroyed so much of this planet. He is on a hopeless quest
to conquer nature, rather than redefining our priorities to fit into nature. Mr.
Brand’s distorted thinking is the sort that has made a mess of this planet. It
is rare that I hear such well formed twisted truths to support preconceived and
distorted notions of reality. His glossing over and partial statements
frequently imply a factual statement that is very far from the truth. In fact,
he is omitting,  grossly over
simplifying, or entirely ignoring large bodies of knowledge and scientific data.
If he wasn’t taken so seriously, his form of reasoning is a perilous
combination of ignorance and arrogance that could be laughable, as a tragic
comedy. His cleverness and seeming intelligence is sadly the antithesis of wisdom.
When actions and events that continually prove to further damage and degrade the
environment are refused to be recognized for what they are, and Mr. Brand calls
for an escalation of these actions, I think there is only one way to describe
such thinking – as very foolish and possibly insane. Maybe Dr. Strangelove is
a role model for Mr. Brand, or a hero.