New post on BraveNewClimate |
Green Junk – In praise of wasteby Barry Brook |
This makes sense... or does it?
This post has two purposes.
First, for those who don't follow my Twitter feed (hey,
why don't you?), I'd like to highlight some terrific work from Geoff
Russell and Ben Heard that has hit the 'net over the past few weeks.
These are all 'must reads' - with the first of them going viral in the
retweet world!
1.
A devastating critique of Jim Green's anti-science nonsense -- who
recently shot a 'junk science' attack against respected climatologist
James Hansen:
Green Nuclear Junk:
In their determination to attack nuclear power and those who support
it, anti-nuclear activism has walked away from the scientific process.
As a result, nearly the entire community of environmental organisations
in Australia is currently standing behind figures that are completely
mathematically incorrect. Will they correct these blatant errors and
open their publications to expert external review? Or is correct maths
and good science optional when you wear the colour green?
2. One million solar roofs no reason for celebration:
1M solar rooftop doesn't even scratch the surface of the emissions
generated by a few Queensland cowboys in a single year, let alone take a
serious bite out of fossil fuels.
3. Solar miracles and the nuclear reaction:
Given the speed of a nuclear rollout compared to that of renewables, it
needs to be considered as part of a shift to cleaner energy sources.
Second,
I'd like to present a little philosophical message from Geoff Russell
on waste. This recapitulates some arguments made forcefully by Tom Blees
in Prescription for the Planet.
In praise of waste
The
title of this piece will hopefully arouse curiosity, but I have to
confess it's not quite what I believe. My parents lived through the
depression so I was bought up to be frugal. We weren't poor by any
means, but my mother didn't go to a restaurant until she was in her mid
forties. For my parents, particularly during my younger years, waste was
anathema, a serious moral issue. Attempting to leave any part of a meal
uneaten would be responded to with industrial grade suggestions to
think about poor people going to bed hungry who'd be glad of the food we
children were attempting to throw out. Those attitudes struck root and
are so clearly sensible on many levels that it was a personal shock to
suddenly realise that when they are applied to energy, they are worse
than wrong; they are dangerous.
What can possibly be wrong with promoting energy efficiency?
The
Spanish generate 5.8 tonnes of CO2 per person your year
(t-CO2/person/yr) while the Swedes produce almost 20 percent less at
5.07 t-CO2/person/yr. So can the Spanish turn off more lights, watch
less TV, drive less, eat more raw food, use smaller more efficient
fridges, cars, computers and so on to save 20 percent and get themselves
down to the Swedish level?
Quite
possibly. But it's an incredibly brainless way to reduce emissions.
Partly because it won't ever get them low enough to be sustainable, but
more importantly because it may impede the deep and meaningful changes
that will.
No comments:
Post a Comment