Newsgroup: italia.firenze.discussioni
Titolo: James Lovelock sul nucleare (lungo e in inglese)

IMHO una posizione piu' che condivisibile.
James Lovelock
“Medicine for an Ailing Planet”
Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Seminar
March 10, 2005
     I am a Green and I have been one for most of my life. I don't hug 
trees but I have planted 20,000 of them in a mistaken, but well 
intended, attempt to make the land where I live go back to Gaia faster. 
I care deeply about the countryside, and even more about the few 
remaining places as yet untouched. But I am also a scientist, and my 
main contribution has been Gaia theory, which sees the earth actively 
sustaining its climate and chemistry so as to keep itself habitable. As 
a scientist, and from this theory, I consider the earth to have reached 
a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to our civilization. I am 
deeply concerned that public opinion and, consequently, the government 
listen less to scientists than they do to the Green lobbies. I know that 
these lobbies are well intentioned, but they understand people better 
than they do the earth; consequently, they recommend inappropriate 
remedies and action. The outcome is almost as bad as if the medieval 
plague had returned in deadly form and we were earnestly advised to stop 
it with alternative, not scientific, medicine. Alternative medicine has 
its place, and when we are healthy it is good to avoid strong drugs for 
minor ailments, and many find relief in acupuncture or homeopathy. But 
when we are seriously ill we need something stronger. Now that we have 
made the earth sick, it will not be cured by alternative green remedies, 
like wind turbines and bio fuels alone. This is why I recommend instead 
the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy as part of a sensible 
portfolio of energy sources.
     Few would doubt that Rachel Carson's book “Silent Spring” 
crystallized Green thinking, but few of us seem to remember that Rachel 
Carson's concern was for birds and she saw them as the voices of the 
natural world. Her warning was about the imminent destruction of wild 
life by the uncontrolled use of pesticides and herbicides. We Greens do 
care about the natural world, but as we have grown into a political 
movement it was inevitable that we took on the concerns of our 
supporters who, almost all of them, live in cities and know little about 
the countryside. Their concerns are not about industrial chemicals 
killing wild life but about the possibility that chemical residues in 
foodstuff might poison them; I think that we knew that such fears lacked 
scientific support, but it was intoxicatingly easy to manipulate them 
and forget that Rachel Carson's passionate writing was about the living 
earth, as was Gaia theory. By ignoring the earth, we Greens have made 
appalling errors.
     Consider DDT, the chemical that has saved more lives than any 
other, and its inventor was rightly rewarded with a Nobel Prize. 
Perversely, we Greens persuaded the comfortable first world that 
chlorine-containing chemicals like DDT were carcinogenic, and it was not 
long before legislation banned its use and manufacture. By doing this we 
have denied the poor of the developing world the chance to combat 
malaria successfully, and now 2 million of them die yearly of this 
disease and the lives of hundreds of million are blighted by it. There 
is no proof that DDT does cause human cancer; the mere perception was 
enough for the public to support this madly selfish legislation. Bad as 
it was, this mistake is no where near as harmful as is Green energy 
policy, which harms the whole world and intensifies the crisis of global 
warming. I am not suggesting that the unnecessary deaths from chemicals 
or radiation are unimportant or that DDT should be carelessly used. My 
deep concern is about the dangers we face from an outraged Gaia, which 
is responding to the harm we do in its usual manner by changing the 
environment to a state where we are no longer welcome. Compared with the 
risk of cancer from DDT in supermarket food, these dangers from the 
earth are truly great.
     So what are these threats from the earth? Most of us are aware of 
some degree of warming; winters are short and spring comes earlier. But 
in the Arctic, climate change is more than twice as fast as here in the 
temperate latitudes, and in summertime torrents of melt water now plunge 
from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. The complete dissolution of 
Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have 
risen seven meters—enough to make uninhabitable all of the low-lying 
coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New 
York and Tokyo. Even a two-meter rise is enough to put most of southern 
Florida under water. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more 
vulnerable to warming; in 30 years, much of its snow-covered, white, 
reflecting surface—an area of the U.S.A. —may become dark sea that 
absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight and hastens further the end of the 
Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will then be 
no more than a point on the ocean surface.
     Not only the Arctic is changing; the climatologist warns that a 
four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon 
forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity and for 
the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. 
The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
predicted in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six 
degrees Celsius by 2100. To judge from their previous 1990 report, even 
this grim forecast could be an underestimate of global change. The 
excessive heat of the 2003 summer in Europe was, according to Swiss 
meteorologists, wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds 
against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. 
Over 20,000 died from overheating, and it was a warning of worse to come.
     There are still sceptics about global warming, and influential 
among them is the talented novelist, Michael Crichton, whose stunningly 
good yarn, “State of Fear,” denies global warming and demonizes the 
Green Movement. The public are always more moved by fiction than by 
scientific papers; what we badly need is a good pro-nuclear novel and 
Hollywood film. As a scientist, I know there are no certainties, and it 
could happen that a series of large volcanic eruptions cooled the earth 
enough to neutralize its worst effects. The modellers might be wrong, 
but if they are, it is more probably by underestimating. What makes me 
think global warming is serious and urgent is that the great earth 
system, Gaia, is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. Extra 
heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance 
of Arctic ice, the changing structure of the ocean surface or the 
destruction of tropical forests, is amplified, and its effects are more 
than additive. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm and 
failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control 
and the furniture had ignited. When that happens there is little time 
left to put out the fire before it consumes the house itself. Global 
warming, like a fire, is accelerating, and there is almost no time left 
to act. This is why I am so insistent that the slow process of politics 
will not do; it is now seven years since Kyoto and little has happened. 
Modellers, including me, have predicted that somewhere between 400 and 
600 hundred parts per million of carbon dioxide, the earth passes a 
threshold beyond which global warming becomes irreversible. We are now 
at 380 parts per million, and at the present rate of increase could 
reach 400 parts per million in as short a time as seven years; we are 
close to the range where global warming becomes irreversible and nothing 
that we do will stop it.
     We have so damaged the atmosphere of the earth and destroyed its 
natural ecosystems to provide farmland for our growing numbers that 
already the world is diseased and will not recover for thousands of 
years. Every year we carry on business as usual increases the harm done. 
We can hardly claim to be civilized if we think of ourselves alone. It 
is not the miseries of the first few skirmishes with Gaia due this 
century that should most concern us. It is the thought that our heedless 
indulgence now, if unchecked, will leave a ruined earth for future 
generations.
     We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realize how 
little time we have left to act. We have to stop gaining energy from 
fossil fuels in a way that emits greenhouse gases to the air, and do it 
in the next decade. Carbon sequestration is a grand idea, but will it be 
achievable in time? Clean renewable energy sounds appealing, but in 
practice it is ruinously expensive and little more use than trying to 
survive on a diet of aperitifs alone. Burning gas instead of coal also 
sounds good and green since it cuts CO2 emissions in half. In practice 
it may be the most dangerous energy source of all, because natural gas 
is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. During the next critical 
20 to 50 years even a 2 percent leak of the natural gas from the 
production sites to the power stations makes it as bad as burning coal. 
In practice, the leak rate is 4 percent, so it may be more than twice as 
bad as burning coal or oil. There seems to be no answer other than 
draconian energy-saving and the widespread use of nuclear energy.
     We will do our best to avoid a catastrophe but, sadly, in the 
present world the Green concepts of sustainable development and 
renewable energy are false and beguiling dreams that can only lead to 
failure. I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of 
China and India cutting back in time, and soon they will be the main 
source of emissions. I fear that the worst may happen and our survivors 
will have to adapt to a hot and uncomfortable world. To retain 
civilization, they will need, more than ever, a secure and reliable 
source of energy to power the adaptation. For this there is no sensible 
alternative to nuclear energy.
     As the earth changes to its new hot state there will be vast 
geographic changes—most of Florida and Bangladesh will be under the 
ocean and almost all the major coastal cities rendered uninhabitable. 
Our civilization is energy intensive, and we cannot turn it off without 
crashing, but we need something much more effective than the Green 
ideology of the Kyoto agreement. I expect that we will do little until 
the catastrophes of the intensifying greenhouse become frequent enough 
to make us pull together as a global unit with the self restraint to 
stop burning fossil fuel and abusing Gaia. I believe that meanwhile, the 
world nuclear industry will continue to supply electricity in a safe and 
reliable manner and that this supply will give civilization the chance 
to survive through the difficult times soon to come. We will have to 
stop thinking of human needs and rights alone. Let us be brave and see 
that the real threat comes from the living earth, which we have harmed 
and is now at war with us. We have to make our peace with Gaia and 
remember we are a part of it and it is indeed our home.
-- 
Life's but a walking shadow
a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
an then is heard no more
it is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.
 From the Scottish drama of Bill

 March 10, 2005
Too long... apple mode!
-- 
Lello vitello cantautore alla bona
www.lellovitello.it


lungo ...inglese ...mela mi concedi i diritti?
tasto destro segna come... (cit) :-))
-- 
"Guarda un filo d'erba al vento e sentiti come lui. Ti passerà anche la 
rabbia."
Tiziano Terzani - "Lettera da Firenze" (Corriere della Sera, 8 ottobre 2001)

 IMHO
Secondo te la "I" di "IFD" ce l'hanno messa per bellezza? :-) 

 Too long... apple mode!
Dice che il nucleare è l'unica soluzione pena un pianeta desertificato.
A chi si da' retta????
Ciao
A 

 
A Lovelock. Comunque non c'è solo l'energia, i problemi dati dalle esigenze
di una popolazione mondiale sempre crescente riguardano anche il consumo di
tante altre risorse, è dubbio che si possa andare avanti indefinitamente
anche solo al livello attuale.

 anche solo al livello attuale.
più che dubbio, direi che la sovrappopolazione genera una serie di problemi
di cui l'energia è solo uno, benchè critico e consistente
materie prime alimentari, acqua, spazio vitale... tutti elementi che prima
o poi diverranno sempre più critici

 problemi
Pero' c'e' anche da dire che "sovra" e' un concetto relativo: superiore a 
cosa?
Sta scritto da qualche parte quanta gente puo' fisicamente sostenere il 
pianeta? Non e' una cosa che si possa valutare con facilita', anche perche' 
i consumi di risorse variano e si rinnoavano nel corso dei decenni.
Questo concetto purtroppo viene sempre ignorato da tutti i teorici della 
"crescita eccessiva" (notare anche "eccessivo" e' un termine che va 
quantificato) eccetera.

 
e allora, che ci proponi?


 e allora, che ci proponi?
Nel tuo caso di dare la colpa a Berlusconi o Veltroni, a questo punto e' 
indifferente.
Per il resto, propongo su cosa? Mi stai chiedendo qual'e' la mia "ricetta" 
per salvare il pianeta? :-)
Non ce l'ho (e me ne frega anche il giusto), stavo solo facendo notare di 
non dare sempre troppo per scontato certe valutazioni alla base della 
presunta necessita' di salvataggio.

 presunta necessita' di salvataggio.
non hai la ricetta o il pianeta non ha bisogno di essere salvato?
...comunque è colpa di Veltruskoni a prescindere :-p


 non hai la ricetta o il pianeta non ha bisogno di essere salvato?
Mi sembra che ci sia una buona dose di egocentrismo antropico alla base di 
entrambe le affermazioni. 

Il cugino di Gesù ...[Mela] ha scritto:

lol, facevo per capire. Hai scritto una paccata di cose ma non si capiva 
se secondo te va tutto bene, o se semplicemente non hai idea di come 
fare a risolvere un problema o addirittura se non hai idea se va bene o 
male.


 facevo per capire.
Gia', ma nel tuo caso forse e' meglio se dedichi il tempo a coltivare un 
orto o cose cosi'.

Il cugino di Gesù ...[Mela] ha scritto:

abbattendo gli sprechi di questo mondo e salvando il pianeta :-p


 pianeta? 
no, anche perchè si fosse tutti omini delle caverne , al massimo dediti a
un pochino di allevamento ed agricoltura, sicuramente ne potrebbe sostenere
molti di più
viceversa, non solo la popolazione mondiale cresce a vista d'occhio ma
cresce anche la richiesta di 
- cibo in quantità e qualità
- energia per muoversi, vedere la TV, scaldarsi ecc
- spazi vitali , quindi chi si arricchisce piano piano da vivere in 4 in
una stanza ha l'mabizione di andare a vivere in una villetta con giardino. 
- infrastrutture varie, dalle ferrovie a strade ecc che occupano spazi e
necessitano di energia e materie prime per essere costruite e poi
funzionare a regime
- materie prime, quali metalli o petrolio o altro per realizzare beni di
consumo, essenziali o meno
tanto per capire che il mondo rischia di cambiare parecchio  parecchio da
qui a 50-100 anni. e pensare che qualche anno fa c'era chi sosteneva che la
storia era finita e si era raggiunto un sostanziale equilibrio....

 storia era finita e si era raggiunto un sostanziale equilibrio....
E' anche vero che ci puo' essere pure un processo inverso: con i nuovi 
"step" teconolgici probabilmente si ridurranno notevolmente le necessita' 
energetiche e di materie prime *pro-capite*.
(chiaramente per i paesi tecnologicamente ed industrialmente in primo 
piano).
E' gia' successo piu' volte, basta pensare all'inefficienza dei primi motori 
a scoppio o -ancor prima- ai consumi clossali di carbone dei motori a 
vapore. E questo si puo' applicare non solo ai trasporti... ad esempio pure 
le infrastrutture: le nuove opere rispondono anche a molti criteri di 
ingegneria ambientale che erano inesistenti solo 20 anni fa.