XPost: alt.culture.outerspace, alt.current-events.usa   
   From: blog@lovolution.net   
      
   Lovolution Around the Sun   
      
   A commentary of Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia   
      
   by Doctress Neutopia   
      
      
      
   Earth Day 2006   
      
   Dr. Andrew Weil was the keynote speaker at Tucson, Arizona 's 2006 Earth Day   
   Festival. At the end of his speech, he shocked the audience by saying that   
   his generation made a big mistake in rejecting the use of nuclear power.   
   While he claimed to receive great personal satisfaction from growing crops   
   on his land that he uses to fuel his biodiesel car, his travels have   
   convinced him that the world's long-term energy needs cannot be answered   
   with biofuels alone. Weil said he felt that nuclear power could provide   
   safe, clean energy without destroying the biosphere.   
      
   Apparently, he is not a lone environmentalist who supports "atoms for   
    peace." One of Greenpeace's founders, Patrick Moore, wrote an article in   
   the Washington Post addressing how he came to believe he was mistaken about   
   the dangers of nuclear power. He now realizes the necessity of using it in   
   combination with other alternative energies. Moore feels that since the   
   deadly radioactive gases released at Three Mile Island were contained   
   successfully--unlike what happened in the Chernobyl accident--this   
   demonstrates the safety factor built into US nuclear power plants.   
      
   Moore feels that dangerous nuclear waste in the form of used fuel could be   
   recycled, greatly reducing the amount of material that would need to be   
   shipped to, treated and disposed of in a facility such as Yucca Mountain.   
   The Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS) countered this argument by   
   saying that building new reactors would mean building Yucca Mountain-style   
   dump sites every four years, an impractical task. The production of more   
   nuclear power equates to more radioactive waste transported on our highways   
   and railroads--more chance for "error or terror."   
      
   Moore observes that all technology since the invention of fire can be used   
   for good or evil. He feels it is far better to live with the dangers of   
   nuclear power, including terrorism, than it is to live on a planet whose   
   atmosphere has been destroyed by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal.   
   He sites the Clean Air Council's report that coal is "responsible for 64   
   percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33   
   percent of mercury emissions." To counter this view, the anti-nuclear folks   
   say that we would need 300 new nuclear plants in the United States to make   
   any impact on halting the climate change gases. Since each plant costs   
   around $4 billion or more to build and seven or more years to complete, they   
   will not offset the climate-changing factors quickly enough to make a   
   difference. Moore implies that coal is the major factor in releasing global   
   warming gases whereas NIRS claims it is fossil-fueled vehicles--not   
   electricity--which is the major cause of the problem.   
      
   In a radio interview, Moore mentioned that other noted environmentalists,   
   for example James Lovelock, also support the use of nuclear power. At a   
   dinner during a conference on the Gaia Hypothesis at Oxford University , he   
   revealed that he thought we should build nuclear power plants in deserted   
   places like the Brazilian tropical rainforest. His statement didn't surprise   
   me because his hypothesis lacks a spiritual dimension. For Moore , Gaia is a   
   science, not a religion. But irrespective of spiritual context, what   
   biologist in his right mind could think a place that is home to more than   
   half of the world's estimated 10 million species of plants, animals and   
   insects is deserted? And if there was a nuclear accident wouldn't it matter   
   if a deadly cloud of radioactive gases was released? Isn't Moore aware that   
   "one-fifth of the world's fresh water is in the Amazon Basin ?" What would   
   happen if that water was contaminated?   
      
   After Dr. Weil spoke there was no opportunity for discussion or debate. He   
   rushed off in his biodiesel car before anyone had a chance to catch up with   
   him. Later, when I approached the editor of the Nuclear Resister, Felice   
   Cohen-Joppa, and asked her what she thought of his pro-nuke statement, her   
   comment was "How sad that he shows such a lack of imagination." Her words   
   were pithy and pointed to what is also missing in the discussions about the   
   water crisis in the Southwest--imagination.   
      
   People have sucked down the water table so low that it has left dry river   
   beds baking in the hot desert sun. No longer do otters have a river to swim   
   in and native Arizonan frogs are going extinct. Perhaps the state of Arizona   
   should adopt a motto of "The Killer River State."   
      
   Some people seem oblivious to the consequences of such environmental   
   destruction as if to say "So what? We can always desalinate the sea by using   
   nuclear power plants to energize the pumps." And so, urban sprawl continues   
   growing out of balance, sucking the rivers dry and using the fantasy of   
   limitless nuclear power for its mammoth energy needs. The lack of vision   
   inherent in this rampant construction of unsustainable models is destroying   
   communities and the world. To change our current energy and water use   
   requires radical vision and action.   
      
   Our environmental collapse doesn't just involve the physical dimension of   
   the crisis, but a spiritual, moral, ethical and aesthetic dimension. How we   
   treat nature is how we treat ourselves. If we exploit nature to extinction,   
   we are exploiting the human species to extinction. The outer world is a   
   reflection of our inner lives. Americans have become fat and even "morbidly"   
   obese in unprecedented numbers because they carry a perverse and gluttonous   
   mentality. Not only are they addicted to oil, but to isolation, political   
   corruption, and a permanent war economy that trains people for its dastardly   
   deeds at universities. The rising of the seas from the melting ice caps, the   
   loss of paradise islands in the Pacific, "dead zones" in the ocean, and the   
   increased severity of storms and droughts around the world are all caused by   
   living in a destructive, chaotic pattern of development. To think beyond the   
   crisis requires imagination. Einstein said imagination is more important   
   than knowledge. But especially in our time, when universities and colleges   
   are controlled by the military/industrial complex, imagination is more   
   important than college.   
      
   We need to imagine big because our crisis is big. It is a global crisis. Not   
   only are we in the midst of global warming, but global dimming. Pollution   
   particles have created massive haze clouds that stunt the pan evaporation   
   rate, resulting in the cooling off of the planet. Ironically, in the three   
   days after 9/11 when air flight travel was suspended over the United States   
   and the air began clearing up from jet fuel exhaust, scientists discovered   
   that when we clean up the atmosphere, global warming accelerates because the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)