Polar Bears to be designated "Threatened"
============================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2007/05/polar-plight-bears-are-endangered.asp
Polar Plight: Bears are endangered, should be protected
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Salt Lake Tribune May 2, 2007
It shouldn't be too difficult. The decision whether or not to list a plant or an animal as endangered should be based on science, as indeed it is in the Endangered Species Act. Trouble is, the act itself appears endangered by politicians for whom science is an obstacle.
The act specifies the conditions under which the survival of an animal can be considered in jeopardy. Scientists decide whether those conditions exist for any threatened species.
Take the polar bear, for example. Scientists know that the bears are in trouble, and they know it is because the sea ice on which they live is melting. Summer ice decreased 8.59 percent per decade between 1979 and 2006. At this rate, the Arctic Ocean sea ice will disappear by 2060, sooner if the rate escalates.
Since polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt, breed and travel, the loss of it seems an obvious threat to their survival. The Center for Biological Diversity makes this point in its 154-page petition for listing polar bears as endangered. The National Fish and Wildlife Service concurs.
But Alaska's new governor and a majority of its legislators oppose the listing, and it's easy to see why. They are concerned about the survival of the state's royalties and taxes coming from the oil industry - 85 percent of the state's general fund - and a proposal to build a gas pipeline to the lower 48 states. A polar bear recovery plan might hinder Alaska's oil and gas development, so Alaska officials claim the petition to list the bear as endangered is nothing more than a ploy by conservationists. They say the bear is being used as a poster animal by climatologists trying to drum up concern about climate change caused by burning of fossil fuels, which is probably true, as far as it goes.
But the officials in Alaska also make the specious claim that human-caused global warming is unproven and unfounded, despite a global consensus among experts to the contrary. Not only is their argument insupportable, it is beside the point. No matter the cause, the bear's habitat is disappearing, endangering not only this top-of-the-food- chain predator, but the Arctic ecosystem that is its home.
Politicizing the Endangered Species Act for the sake of the fossil fuels that are driving the climate change that threatens the polar bear - and the rest of us - isn't just unscientific. It is colossally myopic.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Nuclear Power a Non-starter for replacing fossil fuel.
===================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/
David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me. The report’s key findings are;
1.
The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
2.
It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
3.
Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives – leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
4.
The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
5.
Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
6.
Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
7.
An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
8.
There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Get a copy, have a read. If you think Fleming’s analysis is wrong, tell us about it here. I think this book does us all a great service in setting out the nuclear case in the light of peak oil and climate change, and also in the light of ‘peak uranium’. His conclusion that, in the light of uranium depletion, “the task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels” is something to spend the rest of today chewing over the implications of, and how profoundly irresponsible it is, in that context, to advocate building any new nuclear power plants.
===================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/
David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me. The report’s key findings are;
1.
The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
2.
It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
3.
Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives – leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
4.
The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
5.
Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
6.
Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
7.
An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
8.
There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Get a copy, have a read. If you think Fleming’s analysis is wrong, tell us about it here. I think this book does us all a great service in setting out the nuclear case in the light of peak oil and climate change, and also in the light of ‘peak uranium’. His conclusion that, in the light of uranium depletion, “the task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels” is something to spend the rest of today chewing over the implications of, and how profoundly irresponsible it is, in that context, to advocate building any new nuclear power plants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)