Ultimate Inconvenient Truth

 From an edgy writer, Ace Hoffman, in MWC News – A Site Without Borders – – The Green Revolution: Why it cant wait:

…If you think Al Gore will help clean up the environment, think again.  Al Gore thinks nukes can be part of the solution to global warming — but he says he believes they can play “only a small role.”  Because he’s subtle about his support for nuclear power, many would-be environmental activists are sucked in by his ruse, believing that we can let nuclear power continue to be a part of the mix — as long as its portion doesn’t go up.

The truth is: That’s not nearly good enough.  And a meltdown is the ultimate inconvenient truth…

Advertisements

One thought on “Ultimate Inconvenient Truth

  1. …a meltdown is the ultimate inconvenient truth…

    .

    Word.

    BTW, have you read much/any Kim Stanley Robinson? He’s of the opinion that unshackling ourselves from the constraints of capitalism is the only way to effectively mitigate the climate crisis:

    We live by the rules of capitalism, and right now [clean-energy generation] isn’t the most profitable investment. And the big governments of the world are for the most part run for the sake of those making the profits. It’ll be a kind of test to see just how democratic we are, if we ever understand the conflict to be between capitalism and the health of the biosphere (meaning all of us); if that’s the choice and we choose capitalism, did we ever really choose? And if we did, how smart are we? Maybe this is a test of our collective intelligence and sanity as well. So I see a time of real conflict coming, not that this is hard to see, as we are in it already, a war of paradigms, fighting for the will of the culture, the rules we live by, the laws we enact. Every economy, capitalism included, is a system of laws, and we change the laws quite often, so it could be the laws will change very substantially, over time, although now we’re under pressure to do it fast. I hope we can.

    More:

    The way I see it, businesses run in a legal system, governed by laws very tightly, and so if you want to change business behavior, you have to change the laws—and that’s politics—the process by which we continuously change our laws to suit our desires of a particular moment. Our capitalist system has a lot of injustice hard-wired into it—I sometimes call it “late feudalism” to remind people of its historical origins, and the current state’s suspicious resemblances to a world in which a small aristocracy lords it over an impoverished and hard-working peasantry—that’s feudalism, right? But in our world half the population gets by on three dollars a day, and American executives make hundreds of times the amount other workers in the system make, even though their work is not actually that much harder or more valuable than what everyone else does. It’s a power hierarchy and is understood as such by all, whether they admit it or not.

    And then also the main rule in capitalism is the requirement to increase profits as quickly as possible; if there is damage created by this that will cost people later, then that’s their problem. Capitalism exteriorizes as many costs as it can, but these are all accounting games, because there is no real exteriorizing. Now we’re hitting the limits of the physical systems of the planet we’re on, and the goal of the economy has to change to creating a long-term sustainable civilization, a permaculture that exists within the biophysical constraints set on us by reality. Unfortunately the rule of each capitalist actor in the system acting to maximize its own profits does not create the change of goals we now need. Only changing the laws will do that.

    I think it’s possible to legislate our way to sustainability and justice. We’re close now in some ways in the United States, in that democratic mechanisms are set in place that work pretty well. The rule of law obtains, mostly. If Congress voted to change some economic laws, directing the immense creative force of our economy toward the construction of a clean infrastructure, toward landscape restoration, toward education and justice, then it could be done. Businesses would still thrive, money would still be made, but within different parameters and toward different goals.

    […]

    [F]or things to go well there has to be a global solution that includes social justice and an end to poverty. Social justice is a technology, in that it is a system for getting large numbers of people to live together in peace. It’s a system that has been improving and needs to improve much more for the climate problem to be solved. Global warming and the destruction of many natural environments and species is partly a problem of human numbers; we need to stabilize the number of people on the planet, it is one of the most important of the stabilizations, although not included enough in these discussions. Populations stabilize when women have full and equal legal rights, and control over their own lives. Also, poor populations have a rapid population growth rate, affluent countries don’t. Women have more rights in affluent countries, less in poor countries. These correlations need attending to, they are very revealing insights into the kind of social justice/climate stabilization/permaculture that we need now. Thinking of the whole story makes it clear that the response to global warming can’t be just a matter of changing machines.

    With all that said, he’s also an Al Gore partisan, so keep a salt lick close at hand. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s