An Inconvenient Truth
Being a supporter of Greenpeace Philippines, I was given the chance to attend their special screening of An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary on Al Gore’s quest to influence mankind to stop the ticking time bomb which is global warming.
I’ve seen a few National Geographic and Discovery Channel documentaries on its effect, some even warning life on earth will cease to exist in 50 years time if we don’t do anything about it. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore presents new studies showing that we will start to feel the extreme effects possibly just 10 years from now. Effects like more severe storms, intense heat, droughts, flooding, death of wildlife and vegetations, and the spread of epidemics among others.
We’re already feeling some of those in the Philippines. Our weather gets warmer each year, deaths due to flooding and landslides keep on increasing, our supply of food becomes more and more inadequate especially since our population is on the rise, etc. Since the Philippines is a third world country, we have more to lose because we will be the ones who will feel the brunt of global warming more in comparison to developed countries. It is unfair because the developed countries, particularly the US, produce double the amount of Carbon Dioxide that underdeveloped countries do. But eventhough it is unfair, it would take a concerted effort by every nation to halt the dire future from happening. Al Gore says that it’s not too late yet. By being more conscious of our actions and altering some of our normal habits, we can still provide a beautiful future for next generations.
Some ways we can help:
- Replace regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones. This can save 150 pounds of CO2 a year.
- Drive less.
- Recycle more.
- Check your tires.
- Use less hot water.
- Avoid products with a lot of packaging. Cutting down on garbage can save 1,200 pounds of CO2.
- Adjust your thermostat.
- Plant a tree.
- Turn off electronics when not in use.
- Spread the word about global warming.
- Support environmental organizations such as Greenpeace.
An Inconvenient Truth should be seen by everyone especially our lawmakers. However, it is not enough to just watch it. We should absorb its message, think, observe our habits, then make adjustments which will save the environment.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:40 am
A great way to combat global warming is to develop boron-proton fusion. Not a long shot. Fusion is closer than most people think. Few people are aware of the nuclear fusion options out there.
Nuclear power without nuclear weapons or nuclear waste: It’s closer than you think. Much closer.
For more details, check out my post on daily Kos.
And, just in time for the holidays: fusion fashions.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
hello such sentiments are admirable however one must note that:
As the planet wakes up to the fact that global warming is a reality and that fast action is needed, the nuclear industry, having floundered for a few decades, has seized on the opportunity to promote itself as the answer to our energy fears.
It seems that global governments are suffering from mass amnesia and are doing a good job of spreading it around. The reality of nuclear power is no different now than it was in the 20th Century - it is inherently dangerous. Time and time again the industry has demonstrated that safety and nuclear power is a contradiction in terms.
Safe reactors are a myth. An accident can occur in any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of deadly radiation into the environment. Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. The policy of secrecy, which surrounded the development of the bomb, was transferred to civil nuclear power projects after World War II and lives on today.
The nuclear industy was suffering serious nuclear accidents long before the catastrophic Chernobyl accident in 1986. Twenty years later the industry is plagued with incidents, accidents and near-misses.
Aging of nuclear reactors, in particular the effect of prolonged operation on materials and large components, is endemic throughout the world’s nuclear industry. At the same time nuclear operators are continually trying to reduce costs due to both greater competition in the electricty market and the need to meet shareholder expectations.
Just a few examples of industrial nuclear incidents that highlight the world is never far away from the next nuclear catastrophe:
* Japan, as one of the largest operators of nuclear power had its worst nuclear accident in 1999 at the Tokai-mura nuclear fuel plant when two workers received lethal doses of radiation; one year later, it was revealed that vital safety data and inspections had been manipulated at tens of reactors to avoid ‘expensive’ repairs and lengthy closure;
* Despite claims that the nuclear industry and government had adopted higher safety standards, in 2004, a steam explosion at the Mihama reactor killed five workers. In 2006 a district court ordered the shut down of a nuclear reactor as it could not withstand severe earthquakes - all of Japan’s reactors are sitting on top of one of the world’s most active geological faults;
* The US, with the world’s largest fleet of nuclear power plants, only just avoided a catastrophic accident at the David-Besse reactor in 2002, when it was discovered that corrosion had come very close to penetrating the vital pressure vessel - an accident scenario that can lead to a complete reactor core meltdown. Greenpeace ten years before had filed a complaint to the US nuclear regulator warning of the risk of corrosion at all US nuclear power plants. The warning was ignored; following the discovery at David-Besse, it was shut down for two years (costing US$600 million), but then given a license to operate until 2017;
* French nuclear safety agency activated its emergency response center in December 2003 in response to torrential rainfall along the lower Rhone River, following the emergency shut down of two reactors (Cruas-3 and -4) due to flood affected damage;
* In 2000, the UK Sellafield nuclear fuel processing site was found to have a fundamental failure of safety culture by Government inspectors - but only after public disclosure of violations of quality control and safety standards at its newest nuclear plant (Sellafield MOX Plant). This helped convince the government of Ireland to launch a legal challenge against the UK government at the UN International Court in Hamburg on the issue of nuclear safety at Sellafield.
In addition to the risk of accident, nuclear plants are highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage and terrorist attack. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which promotes the use of nuclear power, admitted that in the light of the September 11th 2001 attacks in New York that:
“Most nuclear power plants were built during the 1960s and 1970s, and like the World Trade Center, they were designed to withstand only accidental impacts from the small ‘Cessna’ type sports aircraft. If you postulate the risk of a jumbo jet full of fuel, it is clear that their design was not conceived to withstand such an impact.”
January 30th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I agree with you about the nuclear industry. As it stands now, all they do and promote FISSION power, which is very unsafe as you note. However, fission is very different from FUSION. What I am referring to is fusion. Furthermore, fusion can be good or bad, depending on which materials you choose to fuse. What most of the nuclear industry is working on now is this huge international project called ITER which uses the tokamak to try and fuse deuterium and tritium. Tritium is expensive, radioactive, and used in weapons. The product of this reaction is a helium and a neutron so it creates heat just like a fission reaction and then you need to turn the heat into electricity. Very inefficient.
The fusion reaction I’m talking about has the potential to save the world, but it is harder to achieve. It’s hydrogen-boron fusion, which yeilds 3 helium atoms and NO neutrons. The helium atoms fly off at high speeds as positively charged ions - e.g., they ARE electricity. Then you just convert the electric energy to our usual electrons with a transformer. Boron is not radioactive, nor is hydrogen. No neutrons are produced, so this is a clean reaction. No nuclear waste, and no way to turn this into a nuclear weapon. Simple electricity.
Research is needed to figure out how to get this reaction to work to produce net energy, but it is within the realm of possibility. When we get it working, it will render nuclear fission obsolete, as well as coal and oil fired power plants. No more dirty radiation, and a huge cut in greenhouse emissions and thermal pollution. It’s the best thing possible.
Still, few people have heard of hydrogen boron fusion, few people demand it, and the only thing people think of when they think of nuclear power is the fission power that you talk about in your post.
Please do read more about this on the focus fusion website: http://focusfusion.org/ Oh! And check out the T-shirts which say it all: http://cafepress.com/focusfusion