Brand built his case for rethinking environmental goals and methods on two major changes going on in the world. The one that most people still don't take into consideration is that power is shifting to the developing world, where 5 out of 6 people live, where the bulk of humanity is getting out of poverty by moving to cities and creating their own jobs and communities (slums, for now).
He noted that history has always been driven by the world's largest cities, and these years they are places like Mumbai, Lagos, Dhaka, Sao Paulo, Karachi, and Mexico City, which are growing 3 times faster and 9 times bigger than cities in the currently developed world ever did. The people in those cities are unstoppably moving up the "energy ladder" to high quality grid electricity and up the "food ladder" toward better nutrition, including meat. As soon as they can afford it, everyone in the global South is going to get air conditioning.
The second dominant global fact is climate change. Brand emphasized that climate is a severely nonlinear system packed with tipping points and positive feedbacks such as the unpredicted rapid melting of Arctic ice. Warming causes droughts, which lowers carrying capacity for humans, and they fight over the diminishing resources, as in Darfur. It also is melting the glaciers of the Himalayan plateau, which feed the rivers on which 40% of humanity depends for water in the dry season -- the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Irrawaddy, Yangtze, and Yellow.
Global warming has to be slowed by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from combustion, but cities require dependable baseload electricity, and so far the only carbon-free sources are hydroelectric dams and nuclear power. Brand contrasted nuclear with coal-burning by comparing what happens with their waste products. Nuclear spent fuel is tiny in quantity, and you know exactly where it is, whereas the gigatons of carbon dioxide from coal burning goes into the atmosphere, where it stays for centuries making nothing but trouble. Brand declared that geological sequestering of nuclear waste has been proven practical and safe by the ten years of experience at the WIPP in New Mexico, and he paraded a series of new "microreactor" designs that offer a clean path for distributed micropower, especially in developing countries.
Moving to genetically engineered food crops, Brand noted that they are a tremendous success story in agriculture, with Green benefits such as no-till farming, lowered pesticide use, and more land freed up to be wild. The developing world is taking the lead with the technology, designing crops to deal with the specialized problems of tropical agriculture. Meanwhile the new field of synthetic biology is bringing a generation of Green biotech hackers into existence.
On the subject of bioengineering (direct intervention in climate), Brand suggested that we will have to follow of the example of beneficial "ecosystem engineers" such as earthworms and beavers and tweak our niche (the planet) toward a continuing life-friendly climate, using methods such a cloud-brightening with atomized seawater and recreating what volcanoes do when they pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, cooling the whole world.
Green aversion to technologies such as nuclear and genetic engineering resulted from a mistaken notion that they are somehow "unnatural." "What we call natural and what we call human are inseparable," Brand concluded. "We live one life."
Stewart Brand is co-founder and president of The Long Now Foundation and co-founder of Global Business Network. He created and edited the Whole Earth Catalog (National Book Award), and co-founded the Hackers Conference and The WELL. His books include The Clock of the Long Now; How Buildings Learn; and The Media Lab. His most recent book, titled Whole Earth Discipline, is published by Viking in the US and Atlantic in the UK.
Kevin Kelly cofounded WIRED in 1993 and served as executive editor of the magazine from its inception until 1999. He currently holds the unique title of senior maverick. Kelly’s most recent book is What Technology Wants (2010), about long-term trends in what he calls the technium. He is also editor and publisher of the Cool Tools website, which gets half a million unique visitors per month. From 1984 to 1990, Kelly was publisher and editor of the Whole Earth Review, a journal of unorthodox technical news. He cofounded the Quantified Self movement and the ongoing Hackers’ Conference, and he helped launch the pioneering online service the WELL in 1985. He is the author of the best-selling book New Rules for the New Economy and the classic 1994 work on decentralized emergent systems, Out of Control.
Peter Schwartz is co-founder and chairman of Global Business Network (GBN), a unique membership organization and worldwide network of strategists, business executives, scientists, and artists based in Emeryville, California.
Established in 1988, GBN specializes in corporate scenario planning and research on the future of the business environment. From 1982 to 1986, Schwartz headed scenario planning for the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group of Companies in London. His team conducted comprehensive analyses of the global business and political environment and worked with senior management to create successful strategies.
Before joining Royal Dutch/ Shell, Schwartz directed the Strategic Environment Center at SRI International. The Center researched the business milieu, lifestyles, and consumer values, and conducted scenario planning for corporate and government clients.
Schwartz is the co-author of both The Long Boom, and When Good Companies Do Bad Things: Responsibility and Risk in an Age of Globalization. Schwartz is also the author of The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. This seminal publication on scenario planning has been translated into Dutch, Portuguese, and Chinese.
Schwartz also co-authored Seven Tomorrows: Toward a Voluntary History with James Ogilvy and Paul Hawken in 1982, and The Emergent Paradigm: Changing Patterns of Thought and Belie with James Ogilvy in 1979. He has published and lectured widely and served as a script consultant on the films War Games and Sneakers. Schwartz received a BS in aeronautical engineering and astronautics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Genetically engineered foods are "only unnatural if you don't know the biology," says author and futurist Stewart Brand. "There is no good reason for genetically engineered food crops to be controversial."
Author and futurist Stewart Brand addresses worries about nuclear energy concerning proliferation of material and waste disposal. He describes a recycling program that converts old nuclear warheads into energy and a facility designed to safely bury spent nuclear fuel.
Energy produced by nuclear fission of heavy atomic nuclei. About one-third of all electric power worldwide now comes from nuclear power plants. The navies of many countries include nuclear-powered warships; almost half of U.S. combat warships are nuclear-powered. Most commercial nuclear reactors are thermal reactors. Two types of light-water reactors in use throughout the world are the boiling-water reactor and the pressurized-water reactor. In the liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor, fuel is utilized 60 times more effectively than in light-water reactors. See alsonuclear energy.
Did he say that he agreed with gene patenting? I do not think he did. Gene patenting is a case of legislators not understanding the implications of the technology and yes, bio engineering has its problems. However, unless we begin to develop that technology now, there will be no hope in feeding the future generations.
Every organism finds a carrying capacity with in its environment based on the amount of available resource, and the limiting resource to population growth is, typically, food. We are expecting to see considerable decreases in crops yields due to warmer temperatures and the same time we are expected to see a massive increases in demand. So who would you have starve? I know that sounds dramatic but in some parts of the world that question is already being asked.
Yes and no, coal needs mining as well. The construction of a coal burner, or a nuclear power plant requires lots of ghg producing technology, same as solar and wind.
The waste that occurs in nuclear technology is that the fuels are generally not recycled. This means that more mining has to occur than is necessary.
Future reactors that breed and recycle fuels would minimise the amount of mining.
There are about 6 different reactor designs for the Gen IV project.
Note that a reactor is far cleaner than a coal burner. Disseminating reactors that are essentially sealed units to developing countries eradicates the radiotoxity and proliferation issues of waste. Developing countries can then recycle the waste to breeding programs.
In the short term, thorium reactors look the most effective as they produce little or no discernible waste (transuranics). In the long term, breeding reactors based on a recycling U-Pu system can be disseminated world wide as there would be no proliferation issue with newer designs.
Not using Pu as a fuel is a very dumb thing.
Geothermal would be nice but I doubt that is will be a major component of the many terawatts the world will need for the future. You have to be in the right place.
Of course, you could pray for a break in the second law of thermodynamics, apparently alternative medicine relies on such a defiance of nature.
Guys, natural is natural! Uranium is natural and so is coal.
Firstly geothermal. There are a lot of ifs involved in geothermal. You have to get the right conditions deep down. Other geothermal units may work.
Nuclear vs Coal, Its pretty obvious that coal is dumb. Nuclear is waste free power in comparison to coal. The presenter didnt emphasize newer technologies where transuranics are not formed and can be used to burn and recycle previous wastes. This hasnt been done except at france.
GM foods and technologies. Frankly guys, if you add up the terrible land management practices that dominate farming and the disgraceful land management practices in the guise of the brand "organic", G.M. looks great. Look at your everyday prducts (health food store or otherwise. G.M. is already there.
If you have to have a good argument about GM, you have to do the work not the sloganeering.
Lets face it, there are naturally bread, totally organic, products that would have you wondering about what you did to get that food on your plate. GM isnt any different.
I really wish you guys picked up on the point, nature shares its genes.
I find it hard to take that nuclear power is 'greener' than solar and wind, given the resources required for construction of nuclear power centers, maintenance of the facilities, disposal of the waste and all the adjoining costs from beginning to end of a nuclear plant's life comparative to solar panels or wind turbines. However, anything that gets us off of a coal to a far cleaner alternative, which nuclear does seem to be, is welcome from me at this juncture.
A lot of deniers claim the earth has been cooling the last ten years.
One of their own is helping to debunk that myth. UAH (The University of Alabama, Huntsville)climate center is run by Dr. John Christy, a well known AGW denier.
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
Reading a lot of the comments here, I get the sense many of you guys are pitting nature against tech, i.e., nature = good while technology = bad. But I don't think it has to be that way. Brand, here as always, is thinking in the very long term - old technologies don't scale to modern life, so let's discuss smart ways to use new technologies to better all our lives while minimizing our impact on the environment. That's a very worthwhile conversation to have.
Originally Posted by whitebearpaws
Moral imperative?!!! Any time man interferes with nature it becomes a "less than."
It's unfortunate that mainstream environmentalism has been taken over by this crazy, religious death cult.
Look, all those beautiful crops, wheat, corn, strawberries, bananas, carrots, cabbages, you name it; they were CREATED BY MAN over the last 10 000 years.
The wild ancestors to these plants still exist in most cases; you have access to the internet, you can go look them up. We did the most amazing job on corn; just look up teosinte to see what it looked like before we got started mucking about with its genome. We've entered a contract with these plants; they provide such a veritable mountain of food suited specifically to sustaining humans that they cannot possibly survive and compete against weeds on their own, the food they provide is in return for our protection. This anti-humanist, anti-gm crap is a spit in the face of all those humans who designed the food you now eat.
I believe that Brand is 100% correct when he says nuclear is greener than solar in terms of GHG emissions. This includes mining and refining uranium ore.
A more in depth analysis of nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc, is done at this excellent site:
Wind and solar are not the solution and the more you study them the more they look like swindles that will actually causes bigger problems in dealing with green house gases.
Mostly, nuclear electric power generation (if not entirely) is really the only viable answer to our energy needs and solving the GHG emission problems.
This realization is happening to more and more people as they study the options.
Good evening. I'm Peter Schwartz from the Long Now Foundation. It's my pleasureand privilege to introduce tonight's speaker Stewart Brand. I don't have to give you hisresume, everybody here knows Stewart, but Stewart has been shaping the world ofculture and ideas in the Bay area for 40 years. And for a lot of that time, I've had theprivilege of having him as a friend and collaborator. It's all about the questions. It beganwith the question, why haven't we seen a picture of the whole earth yet. And in all theyears we work together, what Stewart has done has always asked the hard questions.And tonight, he will be asking the hard questions that he asked so well in his brilliant newbook, "Whole Earth Discipline" and he'll be asking the hard questions tonight that madehim to rethink green and may lead you to rethink green. Stewart Brand.This talk is going to be little like firing a bullet through my book. It will touch on a fewthings, miss most and not take very long. And the book title I know it sounds like itswhole earth catalog revisited, some of it is but mostly it is not because this time the titleis used literally instead of decoratively. It means the planets whole climate and its wholepopulation. The world population is about 6.8 billion now and of that the developedcountries are 1.1 billion, the developing countries 5.7 billion. That means 5 out of 6 of uslive in the developing world. That's the crucial fact. In the developing world, our livesare changing drastically mostly for the better as we move into town, create jobs andeducate our kids. Our countries in the developing world are building infrastructure andwe're still learning about the critical value of natural infrastructure: forests, aquifers,biodiversity and a predictable climate.In the developing world, we control most of the planets land surface in Africa or in Asiaor in Latin America and we're on the move toward opportunity whatever it may be. Mostof that opportunity is in the cities that's why we're going there, it's the dominantdemographic event of this century, is the screamingly rapid urbanization. By midcentury, the whole world will be about 80% urban, the way the developed world is nowand that's the sequence. The developed world passed the 50% urban point back in 1950.The developing world is going to get there very shortly and a balance of power will shift.Nearly all the action in the developing world in the global south and when you compare itto what happened in Europe and North America, the developing world is urbanizing 3times faster and 9 times bigger. Now supposedly the world's largest cities are always thedrivers of history, as we see from looking at history, we now have a distribution of urbanpower similar to 1,000 years ago. In another words, the rise of the west was great but itsover. The aggregate numbers are overwhelming, every week 1.3 million new people intown. Some of them are born there, most are moving there. The question is what's theattraction? This is Kibera bustling squatter city outside Nairobi, everybody is busygetting the hell out of poverty as fast as possible squatters are grassroots entrepreneurs, ifyou can't find a job, create a job. Same thing with your house, same thing with yourtown. There is an equally busy lane in Delhi slum. Another busy lane in one ofMumbai's many slums. And a busy market in Rocinha one of Rio's countless favelas.This is urban life at its densest and social capital at its richest.Everybody in the slum neighborhood knows each other well whether they want to or not.Because what's going on is this intense mystery called the informal economy, whichspecializes in being visible to itself and invisible to authorities. It's huge. Economistshave not yet figured out how it works or taken much account of how it feeds the formaleconomy of nations and feeds the world. So for example in Mumbai, the economists arestill catching on the slums do not undermine posterity, they help create it. Mumbai issaid to be half slums, which is also one-sixth of the gross domestic product of all of India.Informal economy, steals electricity from the formal economy. This is homemadeinfrastructure. Here is a dramatic slum interface in Sao Paulo. If you take a close look atthat edge, you see something interesting. Cities specialized in jamming ways of lifetogether and thereby creating value, you put supply right next to demand. Here the cooksand the maids and the gardeners and the guards in the lively part of town in the left walkto work in the boring rich neighborhood on the right. Proximity is amazing. Its like acoral reef of humanity. Proximity empowers, urban intensity is at its most resourceful inin the working slum. A far reaching train and the near reaching market can brush togetherin a strangely intimate dance. Good luck thinking about that one city planners. TheDarvi slum performs no end of services for itself and for the city at large. Among otherthings it has 4,000 recycling units and 30,000 rag pickers sorting 6,000 tons of rubbisheveryday, now that's recycling.Basically, the greenest of all humans are slum dwellers in the developing world. Theyuse minimal energy, material and food and they recycle everything. Here is one. Butthey are that green because they are so poor and they do not choose to remain poor. Norshould anyone in the developed world require them to stay poor in order to stay green.They will climb the food ladder toward more protein and they will climb the energyladder towards more electricity. This is in the Darvi, a gentleman named Lakshman saysfor toilet purposes we have to go outside and that's a problem. We have to go on theroad. The electricity is on for two days then off for two days, then not on at all. Wedon't have much space for the children to play in. They use the road to play andaccidents take place again and again. I've not studied at all and I'm illiterate.For work, I stitch government jeans and pants. ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s fine but the workday ends late. Iwant to educate my kids until the day I die I'll educate them. As long as I'm around,that's guaranteed. I don't want to be in the way of this gentleman. He will make thesethings happen. Parents in the slums pool in money and hire teachers often their neighborsto do private tiny unofficial schools and education going on in those places changes theworld they are often pretty good schools sometimes better than the official ones. So thebig event in the world is that for the next 30 years, you can have a world full of youngpeople in new cities in the global south and the rest of us in old cities being old people inthe global north. Now, where do you think the action is going to be?Now, if you want to save a village, here is what it takes, bear the city in mind, you want agood road to town, you want a good cell phone connection. This of course is one of JanChipchaseÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s slides from Nokia. It is no accident that the developing world nowdominates cell phone innovation. They did that with $10 cell phones. Imagine what theyare going to do with $20 Smart phones. And right now they are charging those cellphone batteries with diesel fuel hauled in by truck but if they can get electricity, goodelectricity then the village comes back to life and its no longer a dark trap. Becausevillages emptying out is the main thing is making cities green in the developing world.The people leave the poverty trap and ecological disaster of subsistence farming behind.When they are gone, the natural environment recovers and those who remain in thevillage develop cash crops and better land for the new customers in town. In thedeveloped world where our cities are green because the city dwellers use less energy andmaterials than people in the suburbs or countryside.So, coming to my book and one of its points is that cities are green. Both in thedeveloped world and the developing world, as soon as people move into town, theyimmediately start having fewer children. In the developed world, it's way below actuallythe replacement birth rate of 2.1 and its rapidly getting there in the developing world.There are four major news items in my book, I think people will keep asking about theseare the man bite dog story. Nuclear power is green, genetic engineering is green and geoengineering may well be necessary because thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the other main whole earth event thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sgoing on besides this huge move to towns. This is wealth finally coming to thedeveloping world and thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s climate change.I'm not going to do much on that you've all seen J curves and what not but here is a littlesample of how gnarly it gets. This is a quick look why the climate news is going to keepbeing worse than we expect sooner than we expect. Climate is profoundly complex notonly our system full of run away positive feedback hidden thresholds and irrevocabletipping points. These are some of the ones that we know about. Now, one that'sinteresting positive feedback is this one. The Arctic ice melted 40 years ahead of theschedule because of a positive feedback situation. Bright ice like this reflect sunlight.But dark water doesn't as can you give me some dark water, there is the dark water, yeahI see and the room lit up and then went dark. Bright ice reflect sunlight, dark waterabsorbs it, warm water makes less ice, which then makes more water which make less iceand that's positive feedback and it keeps going until there is no ice left..Similar dynamics are going on with tundra and methane with the rainforest drying outand going away and taking the rain, the clouds and the million species with it. Itssomething I constantly want to do is, is look at the next interesting thing going on and thenext interesting thing to me is its relatively easy to detect positive feedbacks with justthings taking off. Negative feedbacks can be mysterious. Here is one and there is thegood news. So there is this unidentified sink of carbon which is quite large and they cansee how big it is but they don't know where its going. These decades a lot of carbon isdisappearing from here, we don't know where its going and that's the good news is itshappening and the bad news is we don't know what's happening or why its happening sowe don't know how to help it or at least stop hindering that.Another such story is the peculiarities of this wonderful algal coccolith form. It formshuge blooms that are visible from space. It brightens the earth's albedo and it does that,draws down vast quantities of carbon into its hard shell and then politely sinks to thebottom of the ocean. In the process it emits dimethyl solidified particles that become thenuclei for water droplets thereby creating reflective clouds. And it prospers even whenthe sea becomes acidic, which is what's happening these days. Now few weeks ago Ispoke to the state department and one slide its unreadable but it gives you a sense ofwhere the climate refugees are expected as the problems to climate continue to multiplyover the next years and decades.Climate events are expected to lead not only the massive motions movements of refugeeswhat you get with that is resource wars, chaos wars and potentially a massive die back ifclimate keeps being going catastrophic. Jim Lovelock's version of this is that if we go tothe warmer world of 5 degree celsius warmer that he thinks we're now on progresstoward the carrying capacity of maybe a billion and half humans. We're already seeing bitsbits and pieces of this. Darfur is a classic case. Basically drought is the great civilizationkiller, it is the great carrying capacity reducer and it leads to people fighting over thediminished resources left. We're also seeing not only fire but fire squared as they say inAustralia and the American west and lots of other places. So trees dry out they burnmore easily another positive feedback there they are putting a lot of carbon into the airwhen they burn.One of the direst potential places is the Himalayan plateau because global warming ismelting those glaciers such as these in Bhutan and those glaciers feed gives water whichis 40% of humanity. Look at the major rivers there, the Indus, these are major rivers, theGanges, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Ayeyarwady, Yangtze and the Yellow river. Talk aboutthe developing world that's where everybody lives. So greenhouse gases, how do wereduce greenhouse gases, get down the water takes to make base level electricity, lot ofthem are in the developed world, a lot coming in the developing world, I was just withPeter Schwartz and friends in Cambodia, Singapore and Vietnam a couple of weeks ago.And as soon as those people get any money at all they are getting air conditioner, itsgoing to be Miami globally thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a lot of energy.So the real fact is our climate problems are caused mainly by coal, which is the cheapestsource of energy. Everyone would keep burning it until governments make it expensive.Cities require base load power, electricity available all the time wind and solar so farcan't provide it. The only carbon free substitutes for coal nuclear and hydro and hydromost of the world has already maxed out. Now, I thought we might have solar beameddown from space and then I got beaten up by Elon Musk who knows a lot about spaceand a lot about solar and said, no fucking way. Even if we could get the equipment toorbit for free beaming it down direct channels underground and the rest of it is just tooexpensive and impossible, so forget it.So sorry about space solar which would have been nice, itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s be on 24/7 but we're back tohydro and nuclear. Bear in mind that the folks in the developing world want thatelectricity they will either at present get it from coal or from nuclear. And while we areat it in the developed world likes to leave the lights on at night, that's what we do, that'show we refer to cities, bright lights. So coal and nuclear, this the main green argumentthat I see from nuclear compare what happens to the waste products from nuclear versuscoal. And bear in the mind the differences in pure scale here. If all the electricity areused in your lifetime came from nuclear the waste would just fill a coke can whereas anormal one gigawatt coke plant burns 80 real cars of coal a day. Each car holding100,000 tons of coal and that turns into 19,000 tons of carbondioxide plus no end ofslurry fly ash atmospheric mercury and the rest. Where does that carbondioxide go, nowthe nuclear waste is small and contained to cast a year for a gigawatt plant whereas thecoal 8 million tons of carbondioxide go into the atmosphere where we can't do muchabout it. We don't even know what the hell is doing there, its truer its hard to get itback. And when you compare the lifetime emissions for kilowatt-hours from the variousenergy sources, nuclear and you added all up compares to hydro and wind and it's aheadof solar so far. Now if you don't think that coal and nuclear are competitive just ask theminers in Australia who mine for coal, they don't want nuclear.Okay, wind and solar. I remember the whole earth catalog was when wind wassomething put on your roof. Wind now is huge infrastructure that's great but that'swhere the efficiency is, is at very high altitude, high as you can get and with this biggerdiameter blades you can getting out of over 300 some going up to 500 feet and by theway the wind in people are usually in different places who have very long power lineswhere they are usually expensive loss of efficiency moving the electricity you get fromwind into town. And in fact there are all supplemented with gas fired plants because ofthe wind not always blowing problem. The solar issue is one not only the solar isn't amassive supplier of energy yet in fact they say there is 10 gigawatts of solar capacity inthe world all since that's 14% efficient in terms of that is not efficient but in terms of Imean when the sun is on and everything is working. That means you get one at presentin the world you get 1.4 gigawatts of electricity from solar which is less than 1 largenuclear plant.And the footprint issue, go to a pretty place in the desert and think about what it will looklike when you drop the solar panels for these large solar farms on them. It is basically abulldozing process and you might think this is particularly a nice part of the SouthernCalifornia desert but as you can see from the goggle location in the photograph in themiddle of nowhere and is exactly the kind of place that will be bulldozed for these things.Saul Griffith is in the audience. You will recognize part of what I'm doing we just talkeda few weeks back. Civilization currently uses about 16 terrawatts of power most of itfrom combustion, getting it to level off, getting our climate to level off by getting theparts per million of carbondioxide down to 450 over the next 25 years. It requiresreplacing 13 terawatts with new clean energy. He says you can do it with 30,000 squaremiles of solar panels, 15,000 square miles of mirrors this was in 25 years. 2.6 millionturbines, which take about 100,000 square miles give or take in good locations. 1.5million square miles of engineered algae for the biofuels, If you got geothermal finallygoing it takes over 27,000 steam turbines and this is you can keep those footprints downto that point by saying and lets get the 3 gigawatts from nuclear and there will be only3900, 1 gigawatt reactors.That's mitigation that's what it takes. Added all up and its an area about the size ofNorth America thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s what Saul refers to as Renewistan. So talk about the sacrificial thisis a world sacrifice area all of North America is going to give up with sunlight andlandscape everything else everybody will have solar and wind energy, not going tohappen. Something it didn't make it into the book. There is lot of stuff in the book abouthow radiation is not as worrisome as we imagined and its one of the reasons that JimLovelock is so comfortable with nuclear because he used to be as professional originallywas in medicine and he worked with isotopes and he is completely familiar with howrelatively manageable and undangerous radiation is after all we use in the hospital all thetime. But then there is this thing called radiation hormesis and here is a little story incase of the radioactive Taiwan apartment houses.So there was this contaminated recycled steel, it had a whole bunch of radioactive cobalt60 went into 180 buildings in Taiwan, 10,000 people and they were exposed to anaverage of 1300 millirem a year for 20 years in succession. So their accumulative doseper person range from 40,000 to 600,000 all around bear in mind that people atChernobyl died when they are exposed to 400,000 millirem in an acute situation. This ischronic versus acute. They did the studies in Taiwan, what's the normal cancer rate thereamong the similar population, 10000 people and normally would be out of 10,000 peoplein that 20 years 232 would die of cancer. That's the general population. Now for the10,000 that were exposed all this radiation the big question is how many of them died ofcancer in that 20 years time and I welcome guesses twice as many 600 3 times many 400,half, 150, 235, 110, 0 that would be a miracle. Actually that one is the closest.Seven of those people died from cancer in that 20-year period of time. In other wordsthey had 3% of the normal cancer rate. Thanks to being exposed to all that damnradiation. Here is the chart from the paper and the paper, which is titled, is chronicradiation an effective prophylactic against cancer. Its published in 2004 in the Americanjournal of Surgeons and whatever it is, too fine print to read. Something weird is goingon with radiation and studies are finally now going forward you see is radiation good foryou, you immediately start thinking, gosh maybe this could take care of our spent fuelproblem instead of burying it in the ground we'll carve it up in portable hunks and sell itto people to put under the bed, so they won't get cancer. The hell it is they actually work.We should have some in the lobby.Okay, the big bug bear Chernobyl. What was it? 46 workers died and 9 children fromthyroid cancers that was mainly that happened because the government didn't get, itsvery easily treated in children and everybody except those 9 that got the thyroid cancerare now cured, the 9 they didn't treat fast enough did die. You got to Chernobyl now,lots of people do and take a very dour expression to take these really scary photographsof how weird and awful it is there and the reason they can do that this is back tobackground of radiation. So like any other part of Ukraine or here for that matter. A fewhotspots, one of the great things about radiation is really easy to pick up whetherdosemeter or Geiger counter whatever it is, there it is put a flag around and it and then itfades quickly, that's really what radioactivity does.So what we've now got in the Chernobyl area is and this is a great quote from one of thebiologists who studied the area for 15 years that the animals came back because peoplestopped doing the things which is hardest on animals which is farm and log and livingplaces. As soon as we move out this is a whole chapter I think in the world without us.The animals came back that's a wolf, and we have wolves generally in that part of theworld they've reintroduced some of the European bison and so on and Prypiat meanwhile50,000 people moved out and it is now reforced it and looks quite beautiful. So the bestthing and this is something the United Nations recommended after visiting there is thatthe area its main problem now is not radiation is very economically depressed and thebest thing they could have is tourists. So the Chernobyl National Park would be I thinkan amazing thing to have and once they get the big sarcophagus over the exploded plant itwill probably last as long as Stonehenge be even more interesting to think about.I'm going to brush by the whole question of proliferation. Its well to remember thatnuclear energy has dismantled more nuclear weapons than any other activity, This is forsome reason quiet program that buys warheads from Russians and turns them into nuclearpower, And in fact seeing the number of warheads that has been converted as of June.20% of nuclear power in the US comes from 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear.Half of that is coming from the Russian warheads, thank you. And when we're finishedwith theirs, we're going to start using ours. There is no other weapons system that has asmuch civilian value in it when you decommission it. All right, how about spent fuel, thestandard thing you hear is the spent fuel such a difficult problem and there is no place inthe world where we can put spent fuel. Well, we were going to put it in Yucca Mountainbut that's out and hence budgeted a month ago.So where it is it is where has been for quite a while now, dry cash storage and the variousreactor sites around the US and around the world. You can go there and be photographedstanding next to the thing, no bad thing will happen. And that's a perfectly decentinterim solution while we figure out whether we want to recycle the stuff or burn it inintegral fast reactors or stick it the way the hell down in the ground. If you want to stickit way the hell down on the ground, we've already got a site that works very well for us,which is the WIPP. The waste isolation something plan, pilot plan, thank you. And it's apretty good deal, they go down half a mile and do the salt formation and that's prettyinteresting down there. This is what it looks like, its really easy to mine and that saltgradually heals itself. So whatever you put in there heals in around it. And here is a slidefrom Jim Conca who runs the environmental oversight for the WIPP. And basically hesays that this is how it works. That salt formation, the Salado formation, they are nowestimating that if humanity used nothing but nuclear power and did a once through withits fuel into waste, probably by then we'll be using some thorium, and stuck it in theground.Civilization you could do that for 10,000 years and there would still be room down therein the Salado formation to stick it in the ground and stop worrying about it. The Saladoformation has been there for 250 million years, its not going anywhere, salt doesn't getinto it, doesn't get out of it. Its really a good place to park the stuff. Some of you mayhave seen Rip Anderson was here talking about that he was the science officer at Sandiathat made that go forward. Another thing that people worry about is oh! Gosh what aboutmoving the stuff around. Its so dangerous, itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the guys at Sandia had some fun lookingShipping containers have been loaded on the truck that was crashed first at 60 miles perat how dangerous. They can keep it for being --.hour and then at 80 miles per hour into a 700 ton concrete wall. They have been broadsided by 120 ton locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour. Another physical test involvedropping containers in a 30 foot free fall on to steel reinforced concrete. Comparable tohitting the concrete slab head on at 120 miles an hour. They've been dropped on to a six-inch diameter spike and the containers have been burned in a pool of aviation fuel for 90minutes at temperatures of more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, The result in each case.There were no ruptures or significant damage to the used fuel containers themselvesalthough dented and charred. The containers remain totally intact to protect the used fuelthey would carry.You think you love her tone of voice. So these things have been traveling around from10s to 1000s miles on US highways and there have been no accidents because this is partof why. These reasons and others are why a good many of my fellow environmentalistsalready noisily or quietly support nuclear power. James Lovelock you've heard from,John Holdren is now Obama's Science Advisor he has said many positive things aboutnuclear. He is the reason that Jared Diamond when he was on the stage said that he wasin favor of nuclear power. Tim Flannery, the biologist in Australia is supporting it. PaulHawkins says he was converted by my book from being anti to pro, so want to thinkabout why you want to read the book now. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University hascome out with a very good article basically looking at footprint analysis and sayingnuclear is green and renewables are not green.Patrick Moore was one of the foot cofounders of Greenpeace. He left their board, he wastheir only scientist in the senior leadership and he left when he thought the organizationtrend the anti science, he is now spokesman for the nuclear industry. And he was PhD inecology and he still pushes forestation, and geothermal among other things. Al Gore saysvery, very quietly, well I'm not opposed to nuclear. I want to expect to see some modestincreases in the use of nuclear reactors. I doubt that they will play a significant role inmost countries. HeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s mainly concerned about proliferation and Bill McKibben is reallyquiet but he says he expects the nuclear will increase pretty much in line with what theIPCC is suggesting. And there is a generation shift that's happened over a lot of youngerenvironmentalists are finding themselves comfortable with nuclear because the cold wardoesn't dominate the world, the climate change dominates the world. And nuclear goesfrom being a problem to a solution with that switch.Just to draw a couple of interesting examples. One was Hugh Montefiore who is on theboard of Friends of the Earth in Britain. Some years ago he said climate change is tooimportant, he was coming out for nuclear power and he was thrown off the boardsomewhat noisily. Another interesting one is Stephen Tisdale who from and I think 2001to 2007 or so was head of Friends of the Earth, UK. He said my change of mind wasn'tsudden but gradual over the past 4 years and he finishes up it was kind of like a religiousconversion. Being anti nuclear was essential part of being an environmentalist for a longtime but now that I'm talking to a number of environmentalists about this, its actuallyquite wide spread, this view that nuclear power is not ideal but its better than climatechange.Then we come to James Hansen. When he said a while back we've got to get from 387parts per million of carbondioxide down to 350, that became a rally in for a hugemovement. And indeed there is a large 350 event happening on the October 24 wasparticipating in that but also January of this year James Hansen wrote an open letter toBarack Obama saying coal plants are factories of death. The danger is further down theletter that the minority of vehement anti nuclear environmentalists could cause evolvingthe advance safe nuclear power to be slowed such the utilities are forced to continue coalburning in order to keep the lights on that is a prescription for disaster. 350 doesn'tquote that very much.So what's going to need to happen coal has to be made expensive, climate has to be takenas an issue by the throat. Four major governmental areas European Union, United States,Canada, China and India. If those four all act we might come out okay. If they don't oronly some do we are in a world of trouble because the climate change gets to the pointdisrupting economic resource for conditions that governments could flip and to total selfpreservation against the other states and then you get the downward spiral of wars drivingworsening climate, driving more desperate wars that's a positive feedback you really,really don't want. Nukes are actually pretty familiar, I grew up in Rockford, Illinois thisis just down the highway a little ways, its one of the reasons that Barack Obama who wasa Senator from Illinois is rather comfortable with nuclear because he had a lot to do withthose things.In the developing world, that's now actually the cutting edge of a lot of new constructiongoing on and we can rejoice that so many countries are building nuclear energy plantsand we're doing what we can to help them. And I think of particular interest to thesecustomers and maybe to us is a new nuclear technology and most people haven't heardabout. Now this builds on the environmentalist idea of distributed micro power. That'sthe way we would reduced losses from long power lines building resilience andadaptivity. And usually environmentalist mean solar and wind and cogeneration, but thenew micro reactors might work even better. The first one off the line is Russians werebuilding these small floating reactors on barges 35 megawatts that they are going to usealong remember the melting ice shipping is now going to commence along the completeshortcut north of all of Europe and Asia along the northern sea route as well as thenorthwest passage.So they are building these and they are pouring concretes for the ports along that routeand this will be the energy source. They are also selling them, we'll sell them to coastaldeveloping countries that would like put 35 or 70 megawatts to power their coastal town.Scale is pretty interesting, the large reactor these days is 1.6 billion watts and 25 millionwatt reactors, 25 megawatt. This is 64th of that size, its not one reactor, one small town.Most of these micro reactors are meant to be buried and relatively left alone. You don'tneed a lot of guarding of it and this is a design from Toshiba. Here is one that theydesigned across the way at Lawrence Livermore lab and here is one that claims its goingcommercial right away based in the Mexico the design from Los Alamos uraniumhydride technology. The thing on these micro reactors is they are relatively cheap, theyare quick to build and the designs evolve rapidly. All of them are meltdown proof andproliferation proof and various forms of idiot proof. There is another company in Oregoncalled New Scale and its designing a light water reactor meant to be built in modularform you put in one of these and when you like it or you grow your town or whatever andyou add some more. An old player in the game, Babcock & Wilcox, they've beenbuilding navy reactors for 50 years. They are now getting into this and they have 125megawatt modular reactor coming out with this. The weirdest one probably is say thatthorium reactor that designed by Lowell Wood. Freeman Dyson loves it, its beendeveloped by Nathan Myhrvold in Terra Power they are based in Washington. This thingyou stick in the ground, it has all the fuel it needs for the lifetime, which might be 60years and you just leave it there. And its thorium so it doesn't have a lot of the problemsthat we associate with Uranium. Okay that's enough on nukes. Well this is kind of nukey.Food apocalypse this is romantic environmentalist, at its worst. So this will fuel whatyou've seen as unnatural basically vampires. It's only unnatural if you don't know thebiology. All microbes swab genes promiscuously all the time the selection pressure onproblematic genes in the wild is fierce. Genetic engineering really reduces the hugeimpact of agriculture unnatural systems and you'll notice that are renowned biodiversitybiologists like Peter Raven and Ed Wilson take no part in the campaigns against thegenetic and engineered food crops. So then you ask, well, who likes them? Well, theAmish for one like them. In the world they are extremely popular and Africa especiallywants people catch on. So in South Africa, we don't eat genetically engineered sweetcorn in this country. We just eat feed corn which becomes corn meal and tortillas andbuns and muffins and things like that. But in South Africa one of the most popular of allfoods there is white maize, it is genetically engineered and they love it because it worksso well for the farmers heading off both pest and weeds remember about 40% of theworlds crops mostly in the developing world is lost every year to weeds and to pests.So for that reason that because they work so well against those, this is most rapidlysuccessful agricultural innovation in the history, good for the environment becauseanother thing is they enable no-till farming and that protects the soil it reduced pesticideuse especially in things like BT cotton and the increased yield and that frees up rural landto remain wild. Now this map from 2006 is out of date because it shows no Africancountries doing stuff that's because the European environmentalist with Friends of theEarth International and Greenpeace International went to enormous lengths to terrify theleadership of the African nations that this was poison. People starved as a result of thatdirectly and great harm was done. But now the agriculture the African nations are finallygetting up to speed and after a decade of delay may be two decades of delay caused bygreens in Europe.There is no good reason for genetically engineered food crops be controversial. I thinkmy fellow environmentalists have been irrational in this subject and really have doneharm. Now, if you got a question about that ask the Nuffield council on bioethics whotook serious detailed exhaustive study of the issue genetically modified engineered foodcrops especially in regard to the developing world and basically said it is a moralimperative to make GM food crops readily and commercially available to people indeveloping countries who want them. Bear in mind, besides the obvious matters the foodsupply and enhanced attrition, these GE crops are can be made drought tolerant, salttolerant and flood tolerant as Pamela Ronald over here has done with rice and they aregoing to be crucial for adapting the climate change in the developing world and that's justthe beginning. Genetic engineering is sort of the sleepy backwater biotech these days aswe saw when Andy came here and spoke.Synthetic biology is taking off this steep angle. Children are having their minds focusedon the opportunities of screwing around with genes and the question that I've been askingfor the last few years where are the green biotech hackers has been answered by thejamboree IGEM international genetically engineered machine. Jamboree they hold inCambridge every year they are up to 21 countries 1,200 participants, 84 teams and itsgrowing like burning man and it doubles every year.I wonder if there is an overlap. One of the things that I as a preservationist restorationwant to see dealt with is that I think that genetically engineered bio controls could help alot with these invasive species. So youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got your Guam brown snake you got yourkudzu, your French broom, red imported fire ant, zebra mussels, northern snake head thecane toad that is poisoning Australia and most graphic of all the lamprey eel. And thehuge question is how do you fight back once you have an infestation. Well, the thingwe've learned in bio controls is the smaller the organism that you point at trying tocontrol and invasive the better you can target it exactly and it doesn't do the wrong thing.And that you can its already happening a lot of these and in fact the cane toad they aredeveloping a lot of viral engineered virus that may well head off the cane toad problem.There is organisms we like earthworm. The term for what they're doing now is calledecosystem engineering or a niche construction. And what the earthworm does is it takesa crappy from its standpoint areas soil and basically improves it for itself but it happensto be improved for resilient other organisms at the same time including us. So we like tohave earthworms in the soil because the garden grows better and the rest of it. Anotherecosystem engineer is the beaver. One of the reasons the Yellow Stone Park went to hellis because when they got rid of the wolves the elk increased enormously got lazy startedeating up all of the trees down on the rivers, riverine, foliage, and trees went away. Thereis nothing for the beavers to cut down and make dams out of so the beavers went awaythen they brought the wolves back, the elk got scared, ran for their lives where they aresupposed to do for now. And then the trees grew up, the beavers came back to cut downthe trees and make dams and this huge enrichment that goes on with beaver ponds is backin the Yellow Stone Park, thanks to the wolves. There is another famous ecosystemengineer Aldo Leopold. He inspired a lot of us in part by doing kind of wild and crazyrestoration in the 150 acres in Wisconsin, brought the trees back, actually brought toomany back they had to cut a lot of them down.. He undid serious damages are reallyfrapped out farm that he took over got it retrieved brought it back made a wonderful as awhole Aldo Leopold museum and study center they are now. He was undoing thedamage for 150 acres. We have damage done due to larger area maybe the whole planet.And that's going to get here. So here is part of life. Geo engineering is you can alreadysee it being taken seriously sooner than expected its because we're starting to face theseharsh realizations. Geo engineering is direct intervention on climate mechanismsseverely non-linear mysterious system that I spoke off, that's what makes it hairy that'sjust beginning of the hairiness is then you get to fine who is going to control it, how dothe international agreements work. It is so cheap to do some of those things, you canchange the climate for everybody if you were a very rich person or a country like say inChina was just we are tired of having western China go dry on us. We're going to put abunch of something in the atmosphere little dim the sunlight a bit and sorry about youguys downwind but that's what weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re doing. Well you know we do here or downwind tothem we see their coal now as red sunsets we would say that's an act of war.We don't have governance forms that can deal the geo engineering yet and they need tostart emerging. Now in case you want your things well this stuff can possibly work. Thisis one of these most popular climatologist because they know it works. The MountPinatubo volcano exploded in 1991 sent 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 20 miles upinto the stratosphere. That then cooled down the planet by 0.5 a degree celsius. The icecame back in the Arctic. The polar bears came back and the polar bears of the years '92and '93 are known as the pinatubo cubs.We now realize that it is technically possible for humanist to do the same thing year afteryear as Mount Pinatubo at a cost of maybe 30 billion a year, not that much. And if notPinatubo had kept doing its thing year after year, it would have taken the globaltemperature down not 0.5 degree celsius but 3 degree celsius and guys were reallydubious about all the stuff worked into it and the modeling makes it look pretty good. Sothat's the one that probably going to be experimented with most first that really green oneis the one that John Latham and the engineer Stephen Solver came up with to atomize seawater so that the salt water and tiny particles goes up dries immediately you get a littlegrain of salt that becomes nuclei for cloud particles you can brighten the clouds a lot withthe ocean, brighten all over the earth sounds great.And this is it desperately cool sailboat. Salter design with this flattener sails. Andanother one Jim Lovelock and Chris Rapley from the science museum in London cameup with this the idea of having 400 foot pipes that can reduce the thermocline problemand the stratification of ocean when it gets too warm and it dies. Its also way to coolwater on coral reefs or to prevent hurricanes from coming through it. Another idea isartificial trees Klaus Lackner came up with the idea of doing air capture of carbondioxideand the idea would be to put these things where you can sell the CO2 in the industrialchemicals for greenhouses, food process and dry ice water treatment from the applicationside. Another idea that everybody likes because the Indians came up with first is whatthey call terra preta or biochar which is basically paralyzed smoldered plant waste,agricultural waste and log in waste and just what to go into the ground that turns bad soilinto good soil stays down there for 4000 years and it can be done in many scale, the bigquestion is whether you can actually scale up. Scale is part of what's going on. WeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢realready dealing at scale and noble prize winning climatologic Paul Crutzen calls our eraour geological era the anthropocine the human dominated era.We're stuck with its obligation is the whole earth catalog first words were we're as godsmight as well get good at it those were innocent times. First words of the new book arewe are as gods and we have to get good at it. The looming catastrophe of climate changeis forcing the change and environmental thinking. The reality of the developing worldwhere most people live is forcing the change the environmental thinking. The shift isfrom the ideology to pragmatism from romantic identification with nature the scientificexamination of nature thrown at us unlike anything we've seen before we have tounderstand. Ecology is not yet a predictive science it needs to be one. Climatology is notyet a predictive science and it needs to be one. We're required by circumstances to beecosystem engineers at planet scale. We need to figure out how to do it with this lighttouch as possible and as much intervention is necessary.Ecological balance is too important for sentiment and it requires science. The health ofnatural infrastructure is too compromised for passivity that requires engineering. What wecall natural and what we call human are inseparable. We live one life. Thank you.