Comments on: WIRED Magazine's "Environmentalism"

By: RemyC

RemyC — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:18:19 +0000

The naturally occuring radiation you get from space, coal burning, rocks under your house, is not at all the same kind of thing as the elements vented and leaked by nuclear power plants… They’d like for you to think so, it’s been their credo, but it’s a lie. There’s no such thing as enriched uranium let loose by nature, let alone plutonium… these elements didn’t exist in the natural environment until we spent billions to produce them and put them there… “nuclear energy, but primarily as a temporary solution.” yeah, right, which is why we’re going to craddle this waste for thousands of years. Temporary as in forever! Everytime you fire up a new nuke, you dump the responsibility of watching over it to hundreds of future generations… Rust never sleeps… it’s suicidal, criminal, and why I won’t ever buy into the argument that nuclear is an option. It’s never been, never will be, it’s sheer madness, perpetuated by a folly of greed, grandeur and stupidity. It’s been going on since the Manhattan Project. We have to put a stop to it, otherwise there won’t be anything left to save, ultimately all these reactors will go critical, will collapse from old age, accidents will happen, are happening, and our environment will become so radioactively toxic, we’ll simply vanish like a failed experiment… maybe that’s our faith, but not on my watch! Shut down Indian Point! Shut them ALL down!

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:53:47 +0000

I understand that Wired is trying to sell more copies, but the way they’re doing it is (in my opinion) irresponsible and misleading.

By: E.R. Dunhill

E.R. Dunhill — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:34:31 +0000

I’m curious as to how WIRED defines “environmentalist”. I would say that anyone who intentionally works to improve environmental quality, including the authors of the article in question, fit the bill. The magazine simply makes an inflammatory statement to sell copies.
WIRED’s declarations can hardly be taken seriously, when they miss the very real problems of soil loss, nutrient pollution, stormwater management, intensive animal agriculture, and fisheries over-use. Their advice on diet falls short by neglecting carbon benefits of reduced meat consumption, losing weight, and consuming in-season produce. A couple of hours of research, a conversation with an agronomist, or some common sense would have shed light on most of these.
Hair-splitting over definitions and shoddy research aside, most of what WIRED has written isn’t new. The “environmentalists” they ridicule with broad-brush have been praising the merits of urban living for years. The first time I heard this advice was in 1995, when a couple of MD State Assembly members lectured for a course I was taking. At the time, they were already working to encourage movement into cities. It wasn’t a new idea back then. Likewise, Nuclear energy has some vocal supporters in the environmental movement, like Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, and Patrick Moore.
I think there is an environmental benefit to the use of nuclear energy, but primarily as a temporary solution. WIRED misses the fact that a more sustainable, more efficient solution is a combination of mass-localization, and resource conservative lifestyles. Rather than simply replacing coal-fired nodes on the grid with nuclear (or wind-powered nodes), in the long run individual buildings need to produce more of their own power by whatever means is geographically appropriate and sustainable. Long-distance transmission wastes a great deal of energy.
The article is a publicity stunt, but one that may legitimately get people who bristle at the word “environmentalist” thinking about environmental problems.

RemyC,
What’s your source on the nuclear radiation / cancer issue? I’m not sure that what you’re saying is necessarily true of nuclear power plants per se. According to EPA and NRC radiation exposure from living near a nuclear plant is less than what people are exposed to for medical purposes or from nature. Under normal conditions, coal-fired plants expose local people to more radiation than do nuclear plants. Even nuclear failures can be greatly overblown. For example, people living within the vicinity of the Three Mile Island accident received an additional dose of radiation that was much less than what you’d experience from a chest x-ray. Radioactive materials can be managed safely.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:26:14 +0000

Though I’ve got my opinions, I won’t get into the nuclear argument here again. Instead, I wanted to say that i think one problem we have in this discourse is the separation of environmentalism and concern for carbon emissions. It should be logical that the two go hand-in-hand but alas the current dialogue happening in the US media does not combine the two. If all we’re concerned about is carbon emissions, then maybe Wired is right. Nuclear is relatively greenhouse-gas free and the largest consumer of energy is industry and unless big-business cuts their consumption, every little thing we do (like switching to LEDs or not driving our SUVs) isn’t going to be effective. I think why this article makes us crazy is because as environmentalists we know this issue is about more than just carbon emissions. And we know that making a huge difference requires a philosophical sea change that Wired doesn’t seem to be advocating but which is the only way we can move beyond these silly discussions on how great a difference a light bulb can make and move on to bigger issues.

By: Green your next seminar and skip the “Nice. Plastic forks”. : Ecopreneurist

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:51:13 +0000

[...] our over-wired world, live events are a luxury, an hour or three to feel how much we really love context and [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:41:18 +0000

RemyC:

You say that “Nuclear radiation is the number one cause of cancer on Earth…” – and somehow connect this to nuclear power entirely? What about the immense number of other sources of radiation? Do you seriously expect people to believe that nuclear reactors are the sole source of cancer causing radiation? Or even a significant source?

The amount of radiation that any given person is exposed to due to nuclear power plants pales in comparison to the myriad sources of radiation in our every day life.

What about the carbon footprint of producing, setting up and maintaining wind and solar farms? Let alone the immense amount of physical space they use compared to their output… and then what about when its not sunny/windy? Then theres the birds, surely you’ve heard about all the issues around birds falling victim to gigantic wind turbines.

You may be scared of the big bad “R” word but its a part of our everyday life. Heck, people have naturally radioactive granite counters in their kitchens that cause them to receive more radiation on a day to day basis then someone who works with radioactive materials in a plant/lab.

The possibility of absorbing a significant amount of radiation due to proximity to a nuclear power plant is minimal at best due to the many safety precautions in modern nuclear power plants.

By: RemyC

RemyC — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:50:19 +0000

If Lewis is smart enough to say: “It’s all about LEDs”, he should also be smart enough to read another article in this headline grabbing issue of WIRED about how classified nano-chemistry released for commercial applications designed a better fishing rod! Now that should tell you something, that many solutions to the climate change crisis are kept under wraps by a secretive military only interested in single applications of patents for weapon development. Compartmentalization is hindering our quest for more efficient energy conversion technologies benefiting the whole of society.

Nuclear is NOT the cleanest form of base-load energy. High density storage batteries for wind, solar, and other forms of renewable electrical generation could be that by now, if the best battery chemistries in the world weren’t still languishing in University labs, bogarted by Darpa and other military interests! We (Electrifying Times) have reports from the last li-ion conference that chemistries capable of taking an electric car 3000 miles on one charge are available… but guess what? Who controls energy technology investments?

This is not about oil and coal vs. nuclear. This is about oil, coal and nuclear vs. decades of energy conversion suppression orchestrated to benefit the interest of energy centralization fattening a few families in Greenwich and the Hamptons who still control major energy corporations like ExxonMobil.

LEDs, which we know could reduce electrical consumption on this planet by more than 50% in less than ten years if we put our back into it, are right now, being held back by General Electric and its LED partner Phillips who are using patent law infringement as a pretext to prevent China from unloading LED shipments in US harbors, while themselves are producing LEDs by the trickle!!! Don’t get me going about how Duracell and Eveready took 20 years to be dragged into the rechargeable market, while still urging consumers to buy throw away alkalines!

Pick your fights and your enemies very carefully. There is no worse resistance to positive change on this planet than the nuclear power industry. They incarnate everything that is egregiously wrong with the way we produce and consume energy. Nuclear radiation is the number one cause of cancer on Earth… the medical evidence is being suppressed by the American Cancer Association, one of the most corrupt charities in America. WIRED is owned by Conde Nast, which has resisted printing any of its titles on recycled stock… only paid lip service to the environment by publishing one green issue of Vanity Fair a year, stealing article concepts from journalists like myself because they can’t deal with my convictions, refusing to give me a well deserved byline. They feel they have to tone down everything for mass consumption, to keep their SUV advertisers.

Don’t buy into a magazine that screams nuclear is good for you on Day-Glo virgin stock! Makes you sound like a pinkerton.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:39:30 +0000

I hate to say it, but nuclear is actually the “cleanest” form of base-load energy around right now.

Until we figure out how to make carbon-based fuels burn cleaner, we’re pretty well screwed. Power demands are growing nationally between 10-15% annually, while supplies are growing around 4%.

So either we all turn a lot of stuff off (including our computers, laptops, iphones, etc.,) or we add a ton of capacity. And given that we get almost all our base load power from coal, nat. gas or nuclear (solar, wind and other forms of alternative energy just are not consistent enough to provide power 24/7) we need to figure out a better way to make energy.

Btw…don’t get me started on the b.s. of compact fluorescents. Its all about LEDs.

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:29:06 +0000

“How to Sell a Lot of Issues of Wired Magazine” It is always interesting to read alternative theories. This hearkens back to the “nuclear is the true environmental answer” debate.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:10:46 +0000

I subscribe to wired, and love it, but there is an element of We’re Bad Boys– We Can Shake You Up to their writing.
For solid information about what really makes a difference and what doesn’t, I go to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices is a great antidote to that helpless feeling.