Archives

nuclear - Terra Infirma


Browse All

6 February 2012

Book Reviews: Hot, Flat & Crowded and The God Species

I don't tend to read many "green" books these days - not because I think I know it all, but because I'm topping up my knowledge everyday simply by doing my job, so sitting down in the evening and opening a weighty tome at p1 is less than appealing. However, I had heard a lot about these two titles so I read them back to back. On the face of it the two cover similar ground - charting the scale of the environmental challenge and what we need to do to fix it, but they go about their jobs in quite different ways.

Hot, Flat & Crowded by Thomas Friedman is a few years old now (I picked up my copy in a second hand book stall at my son's school), but I had somehow managed to avoid the works of this pillar of US green thinking. The book is very well researched and covers a huge amount of ground including some concepts I was unfamiliar with such as "Dutch Disease" - the negative impact of sudden discoveries of natural resources - and the link between human rights in OPEC countries and the price of oil. Friedman's main thesis is that while the US is addicted to oil it will never free itself from the threat from militant Islam and will end up getting crushed by the Chinese economic juggernaut. Maybe it was Friedman's assumption of a US readership, or the reliance on lengthy quotes from the good and the great from around the world, but frankly I found reading Hot, Flat & Crowded a bit of a trudge.

You can't say the same about Mark Lynas' zippy new book The God Species. The thesis here is that as we are wreaking biblical levels of destruction on the planet, we'd better use our 'god-like' technologies, such as genetic engineering and nuclear power, to stop the damage before it is too late. Lynas uses the Planetary Boundaries Group's set of 10 9 global environmental pressures to assess the threat from everything from climate change to loss of freshwater before proposing the most effective way of dealing with each problem. While doing so he lays into right-wing anti-environmental libertarians and left-wing greenies with equal abandon, arguing that the former ignore the science on the problems, but the latter similarly ignore the evidence on the most promising solutions. Not content with lauding the green bogeymen nuclear and GM, he delights in proposing water privatisation, carbon offsetting and geoengineering techniques - all anathema to the green movement.

Overall I found The God Species refreshing, entertaining and informative - certainly enhancing my knowledge of the nitrogen cycle and ocean acidification to name but two. Lynas (and indeed Friedman) is one of an emerging breed of what I call 'rational environmentalists' who say "forget the politics and the sacred cows, look at the facts, find the solutions that work". I too have long believed that while the political green movement may have done great work flagging up problems, they are hamstrung by their own dogma when it comes to solutions - nothing is ever good enough for them. That's not to say I'm swallowing Lynas' conclusions wholesale just yet - there is a faint whiff of wilful contrarianism about the book that makes me want to seek out second opinions - but he has certainly made me challenge some of my own shibboleths, and that's never a bad thing.

Verdicts:

The God Species: a must read.

Hot, Flat & Crowded: ideal for American students of geopolitics.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

14 March 2011

Japan's Double Jeopardy

I can't think of a worse situation than the one Japan finds itself in. They have suffered a terrible natural catastrophe, killing thousands and wiping out local infrastructure. Then, with the country already reeling, a nuclear meltdown is ticking away - a race against time to avert another disaster.

I've never been a big fan of nuclear energy. While for some it is an issue of political identity or moral certainties, for me it is the practicalities - cost, the long term sustainability of a finite and rare fuel, the safe storage of waste for millenia, the risk of theft of radioactive material by malignant tendencies, and, most of all, the risk that it all goes horribly wrong. We can do all the risk assessments we like, but every so often a series of circumstances coincides and we witness a major accident, whether we're talking about Chernobyl, Hurricane Katrina or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The whole point of being 'benign by design' is to remove potential hazards at the drawing board. If you don't have hazardous material in the system in the first place, then little or nothing can go wrong. This applies at the organisational level as well as international incidents. If you don't have hazardous material on site, then it doesn't matter how unlucky you are, the impacts of any incident are much diminished.

In the meantime, like everyone, my thoughts are with the people of Japan, hoping that the brave engineers can quickly shut down the at-risk nuclear reactors, leaving the country free to concentrate on rescuing the dispossessed, rebuilding what it has lost and taking time to mourn those who perished.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

19 November 2008

As seen on TV...

I spent yesterday lunchtime shivering my extremities off and squinting into the sun on Blyth Quayside while being interviewed for BBC TV's Countryfile programme. The gist of the programme was the trade off between impacts of energy projects in local habitats vs the need to tackle global climate change. My argument was that it wasn't that simple - if climate change goes unchecked, the local habitats will suffer anyway.

The previous interviewee was Prof Ian Fells, a well known media figure, who had recently written a policy paper on UK energy supply, which he had been discussing. The most controversial statement in this document is its first statement "Security of energy supply must now be seen as taking priority over everything else, even climate change." Interestingly the rest of report demonstrates a low carbon energy scenario based on nuclear which could go a long way to tackle climate change - in other words security vs climate is a false choice. I suspect this sentence is designed to grab the headlines. 

The central thesis of the paper is to change everything to electrical energy (road transport and domestic heating included) and use nuclear plus the Severn barrage and a bit of wind to supply that electricity. But the issue of uranium reserves is not tackled - other estimates of the security of that supply suggest that they could run out in less than a decade under a high-nuclear scenario (eg Paul Mobbs in Energy Beyond Oil). Overall it is a good read, but very partisan - wind is described as 'highly subsidised' but the levels of subsidy to the nuclear industry not mentioned etc. 

I made a few comments to this end, but I don't know if they'll make the final cut. The piece will go out on the morning of Sunday 30 November on BBC.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

Free monthly bulletin:

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events