Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and NuclearEnergy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel

[Randal Leavitt <randal.leavitt@rogers.com>]

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
http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/
http://www.simpy.com/user/randalleavitt/links
http://tinyurl.com/hgvmg