[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and NuclearEnergy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
Ruth Sponsler wrote:
> The communication problem stems from the extreme
> positions taken on the two sides and the implications
> of those extremes.
> I notice very little room nor patience for positions
> in the middle of the extremes.
If I may, I'd like to point out that I find this discussion difficult.
I hold the opinion that climate change is happening rapidly, that it is
caused by humans, and that I don't have enough hard data to convince
someone else about this. Therefore, I find it very helpful to hear
positions stated about climate change not being caused by humans. It
gives me something to push against and helps me to understand the whole
area better. I value reading such comments on this list.
There are many dimensions in this discussion. The anti and pro
technology is one way of organizing it. However, I tend to see it
differently. I am often caught up by the ethical problems associated
with energy. I think humans treat animals badly, and the use of nuclear
power will reduce this bad behaviour. This argument appeals to me in a
large way. I have not met anyone else who agrees with me in seeing this
as the main reason for liking nuclear power. Oh well, I still think I
am right, and I value hearing from others who think I am wrong.
I may even change my mind in some of these areas based on hearing
counter arguments, and that will make me better as a human seeking the
truth. So I don't seek out discussions where conformity is valued above
data and logic and new information.
I have also developed a cynical streak that makes me dislike things that
everyone else likes. If everyone is for it, I am against it. This
feeling is causing me problems with the human caused climate change
issue. Even if we accept that humans are causing climate change, how
can we be so sure about what we have to do to mitigate it? Will
reducing our carbon dioxide emissions really make things better? I
propose that creating white clouds will be more effective, and will
allow developing nations a better chance to modernize. In fact, I worry
that reducing carbon dioxide may be taken too far if it does work at
all, and cause deep freezing. How do we know? The global dimming
paradox seems all too possible to me.
And even though I am a proponent of nuclear power, I really don't like
today's version of it. The new plants that we are about to construct in
Ontario are so much less than they could be. I want to have fast
reactors, air cooled, underground, and in the middle of cities. So I am
opposed to what we are doing today, and even what we are going to do
tomorrow, while wanting this technology to be the base for our future.
What dimension does this leave me on?
Randal Leavitt - another Ubuntu user