@jess_h_brewer
Jess H. Brewer
131 w
GOING ON... One problem with all the COPs so far is that they END. COP26 has illustrated the potential to bring together interested parties from around the world to discuss and debate ideas for addressing Global Climate Change, using online conferencing tools. But in a few days it will be over and, while we should all go home to work on the projects inspired by COP26, the opportunities for exchanging and debating still more bright ideas will have to wait until the next COP. Or will they? How difficult would it be to set up an ongoing "COP Hotline" -- a permanent meeting where anyone can join the discussion at any time? It would require an unusual configuration of virtual meeting soft- and hardware, but should not be prohibitively expensive. The topics and tone of discussions would vary as different regions enter and exit the daylight hours, but no regions would be "left out". Just a thought. :-)
Jess H. Brewer
132 w
SOLIDARITY I fear that we, as a species, have already made up our minds: we will do nothing meaningful about AGCC unless we see an opportunity to "cash in" on the popularity of "green" initiatives. Of course, when millions begin to perish from the effects of climate change, we will rise up and accuse the people we elected of being to blame. At that point most of us will certainly accept the necessity of adopting a "war footing" -- but will there be a chance to survive by the time reality can no longer be denied? Maybe. If the people handing out rewards can be cleverer than the cynical opportunists only pretending to help, we might devise and configure enough helpful technology that can be built at scale in time to save us. Offer generous subsidies and R&D grants, by all means, but examine those operations critically and cut them off immediately if any false claims or lack of transparency is detected. Meanwhile, there is one habit we MUST break: attacking all the other initiatives in the belief that this will give ours an advantage. Solar power advocates attack windmill enthusiasts, who scoff at geothermal power and synthetic fuels made from hydrogen and sequestered CO2; everyone still seems to hate nuclear power, citing reasons divorced from fact or reason, and proponents of high technology scorn the potential of better farming practices. In these seminal times we need to TRY EVERYTHING, so that when we finally wake up and spring into action we will KNOW what works best. Stop shooting at your allies!
Jess H. Brewer
132 w
I've heard that all Nuclear Power presentations were banned from the "Green" pavilion, which is supposedly meant for carbon-neutral or carbon-negative innovations. I believe this was a grievous error of judgment, probably in response to misguided anti-nuclear activism. We cannot possibly preserve an energy-rich civilization without a resurgence of nuclear fission reactors, many new designs of which are now being developed.
65 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
18 w
I completely disagree. It is a lie that nuclear is carbon neutral and here’s why: Accidental release of alpha-emitting particles at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle poses health risks, as alpha particles can be harmful when inhaled or ingested. This risk includes incidents like blowdown of steam generators. The cancer-causing potential is associated with radiation exposure, emphasizing the importance of stringent safety measures. The claim of the entire nuclear fuel cycle being carbon neutral is not accurate. While nuclear power generation itself produces minimal carbon emissions, the entire lifecycle involves carbon emissions. Mining, transportation, enrichment, fabrication, and reactor construction contribute to the overall carbon footprint. The extent varies, but it's not entirely neutral. Calculating the specific CO2 generation during construction requires detailed data on each phase. For example, the Vogtle reactor construction involves heavy equipment and concrete production, both emitting carbon. A precise calculation would require project-specific information, but it's acknowledged that construction activities contribute to the overall CO2 footprint of nuclear power. In summary, nuclear power has benefits but is not entirely carbon neutral due to associated activities in the fuel cycle and reactor construction. AI GPT 4
•
132 w
Nuclear power is not carbon neutral or carbon-negative. It is a low-carbon source of power. This is because of the carbon produced in mining, purifying & shipping ore, the huge CO2 released in building nuclear power plants (vast concrete monstrosities), the CO2 consumed in managing the storing of nuclear waste (a forever commitment) and the CO2 produced during the decommissioning of nuclear plants at the end of life. Some aspects of this carbon release could be cleaned up, of course, but the nuclear industry has not chosen to do so.
•
132 w
Completely wrong. Nuclear is expensive, takes forever to build, is potentially dangerous and has incredibly hazardous waste. There’s no reason for it to exist. We have to reduce emissions now, not in 10 or 15 years. We can store renewable energy now, and if we get rid of capitalism and economic growth, we won’t need that much additional renewables anyway.
Jess H. Brewer
137 w
NUCLEAR ENERGY: I'm disappointed that there has been too little discussion of how to meet the increased demand for energy that will be absolutely necessary to "complete the circle" of materials reuse. Yes, anything can be recycled, but only at the expense of more and more energy use. Everyone still shies away from advocating development and installation of a new generation of nuclear reactors, presumably for fear of attack by the likes of David Suzuki. We cannot afford to be timid any more.
•
137 w
Nuclear power and weapons are extremely carbon intensive and must be eliminated. Thorium reactors may be a possibility, yet Indigenous Peoples around are still paying for these poisonous industries. Until we see justice, including reparations, for native peoples around the world suffering from these dangerous and poisonous technologies we cannot pursue them further.
•
137 w
(1) Why do opponents of nuclear power always use the phrase "nuclear power AND WEAPONS" as if they had to be embraced as a pair? This is the equivalent of demanding a ban on knives because they can be (and are) used as weapons. (2) In what world are reactors "extremely carbon intensive" per KWH of energy generated over their lifetime, compared with any other source of the same amount of energy? (3) I presume you are referring to uranium mines on native land. Do you have any specific examples of harm done? I don't doubt that Indigenous Peoples have been exploited and abused by the uranium mining industry, like every other corporate activity, and I agree that reparations are appropriate; but specifics will be essential in making that case. (The way your demand is worded, it suggests that uranium mining can proceed as soon as such reparations are made. Is that what you meant?) (4) Thorium has great potential and is more plentiful than uranium, but the Earth provides an inexhaustible supply of uranium dissolved in the oceans; it is presently more expensive to extract from sea water than to dig up in mines, and it's not clear whether the extraction process is without environmental hazards, but that could change.
Jess H. Brewer
137 w
Grazing Cattle: Vast land areas have soil and weather that supports only grasses. These areas have long been in balance with herds of grazing animals, which (at the right density) actually help manage the grasses, as well as supplying fertilizer. If we could sufficiently discourage the use of "feed lots" for raising an unsustainable number of cattle for food, we need not give up all meat consumption -- "range cattle" such as bison, antelope, deer and caribou, as well as more domesticated animals (cows and sheep) can provide enough meat to use as a "garnish" for a more vegetable-based diet.
94 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
137 w
We must let wild cattle feed on grasses and live freely.
Jess H. Brewer
137 w
Carrots and Sticks We try to lead with "carrots" -- making desirable practices seem more profitable than undesirable ones. We need "sticks" as well! But until our governments can be influenced to impose regulations, all we can do is use consumer power to create "gradients" of profitability that mildly discourage bad behavior. I wish I could offer a solution to this conundrum, but I don't see any now.
•
137 w
You can Start with writing reviews here. This could engage more people with your thought and you can start a conversation about possible solutions.
•
137 w
That's what I was trying to do. I'm new here and have not yet targeted any Good Guys or Bad Guys for thoughtful Reviews.
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.