[Closed] What The Greens' Got Wrong

Episode 1 of a 176 part series no doubt.

Episode 1:

Complaining about someone having a slightly bigger car than average, whilst bringing children into the world - which unless you are the drunk captain of an oil tanker is the most environmentally unfriendly thing you could do.

Episode 2:

Nuclear power.

episode 3:
Global warming ....my arse

Epsiode 4:
Consume your way out of global catastrophe

Episode 5:
Nucleur power the new green energy source

Not like you bob to only watch programmes you will agree with you are usually so open minded on these sort of things. Have they got one after about why labour are tutterly sh1t ...tv heaven for you perhaps the latter will be on sky somewhere?

I'm feelin the love Junkyard! 😆

😀
Is brokeback mountain on now 😯

Not very impressed with C4 recently. I've stopped watching it.

To save anyone watching it; simplistic view

Nuclear power + GM Food = good or Coal Fired Power Stations + Starvation = Bad

Malaria = Bad, DDT good in small doses = Good as it saves lives

The real issue is we have too many people in the world and the rate of increase is frightening. One day there will be insufficient land to grow food for everyone. I can't imagine what that will be like.

Regarding finite resources; if only people would modify their behaviour to slash their consumption, but this is the last thing on most people's minds. Self-gratification is what makes people tick, not the future of the human race.

Governments like the tax revenue, so only pay lip service to a reduction in consumption. Of course they love to invent new green taxes, but from where I stand nothing they are doing actually reduces the waste.

At a micro level, I just returned a hire car today - a 2L Diesel automatic which struggled to do 40mpg. I am so pleased to get my 1.9L diesel car back which can easily do 65mpg. I was talking to my neighbour about the useless MPG of this newer car and he laughed because he owns two cars with large engines. If he gets 24mpg he counts himself lucky. Why buy such wasteful vehicles? Ego? Self-gratification? Insecurity? Why do governments allow these gas guzzlers to be produced?

I hate driving and do negligible miles now, but i'm sure my carbon footprint is huge compared to someone living in the third world. We really shouldn't have personal transport, but once an infrastructure is implemented, economies become dependant on them and it's nigh on impossible to reverse the process.

It's a worry all this consumption, but updating to green technology costs a lot of money and most of what we can do here in out little corner of the planet is really going to make little difference to the big picture.

Things are really messed up and I can't see how we are going to fix what is a global issue.

My bet is no adequate action will occur to combat this matter until it's too late.

1 nuclear power station in the arse end of cumbria (yes I live here) or 5000 turbines in your garden and lights off on clear frosty mornings

You Decide

(Ok so I was never an environmentalist but I did live in the real world)

Is brokeback mountain on now

Exactly what Spongebob said. Except that additionally, governments are all too wrapped up in economic woes and our (mostly self-inflicted) war-on-terror to care one iota.

Perhaps in a few thousand years time aliens from Gliese 876 will wander around the ruins of our former civilization and marvel at what we achieved, and yet wonder where it went wrong.

Why buy such wasteful vehicles? Ego? Self-gratification? Insecurity? Why do governments allow these gas guzzlers to be produced?

See the car experts thread from yesterday. I got a right pasting for questioning this. It apparently doesn't matter, because even though we are all emitting too much collectively, we don't need to cut our emissions individually because it won't make any difference to total emissions.

governments are all too wrapped up in economic woes

With some justification to be honest. If the economy tanks then nothing progressive will get done. If it completely collapses there'll be a whole lot of human trouble to deal with. Unless it really really collapses, in which case we'll all die which would be good for the environment, but bad overall.

A group of environmentalists across the world believe that, in order to save the planet, humanity must embrace the very science and technology they once so stridently opposed.

In this film, these life-long diehard greens advocate radical solutions to climate change, which include GM crops and nuclear energy. They argue that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.

As author and environmentalist Mark Lynas says, 'Being an environmentalist was part of my identity and most of my friends were environmentalists. We were involved in the whole movement together. It took me years to actually begin to question those core, cherished beliefs. It was so challenging it was almost like going over to the dark side. It was a like a horrible dark secret you couldn't share with anyone.'

mikewsmith - Member
1 nuclear power station in the arse end of cumbria (yes I live here) or 5000 turbines in your garden and lights off on clear frosty mornings

You Decide

the human race will have wiped itself out well before 500,00 years!

or

the nasty bad evil science men may actually find a way to reprocess the waste and do something useful with it in the future.That's the joy of scientific research rather than looking back to the dark ages.

[i]may actually find a way to reprocess the waste[/i]

Perhaps flying pigs could tow it into space?

are you a research scientist in the field of nuclear physics?

200 years ago generating energy for use in horseless carriages by burning the refined liquid remains of dinosaurs was equally proposterous.

unfortunately we're kind of ****ed regardless so we an either wring our hands and wail about it, or try and find a way forward that will actually meet the energy requirements of the continuing population explosion.

The other option is to cease all aid to countries where crisis/famine occurs and let the world population drastically reduce which will have the biggest impact on the planets environment.

[i]are you a research scientist in the field of nuclear physics?[/i]

Don't need to be a research scientist to spot a large white elephant.

Dealing with high-grade nuclear waste is of a different magnitude to the invention of the internal combustion engine. IMO, of course.

Still, I'm sure people are working on it.

may actually find a way to reprocess the waste

Perhaps flying pigs could tow it into space?

Either that or use one of the various designs of fast breeder reactors that don't produce long-lived waste. Not to mention being massively less wasteful of fuel.

they already reprocess nuclear waste and have been since the 50's to recycle as much as possible with current technology. It massively reduces the volume of the waste and the toxic leftovers are easier to store, although they are still exceeding dangerous. The main issue with reprocessing waste is the threat of terrorism due to fact that fuel cells can still be used to make bombs even when they don't have enough output for a power station.

It's not a complete solution by any means and renewable energy has to be the answer in the long term, but well planned nuclear energy may be a usable tool to meet the energy shortfall for now?

The other option is to cease all aid to countries where crisis/famine occurs and let the world population drastically reduce which will have the biggest impact on the planets environment

The main issue with reprocessing waste is the threat of terrorism due to fact that fuel cells can still be used to make bombs even when they don't have enough output for a power station.

Arising from a year's operation of a typical l000 MWe nuclear reactor, about 230 kilograms of plutonium (1% of the spent fuel) is separated in reprocessing. This can be used in fresh mixed oxide (MOX) fuel (but not weapons, due its composition).

here have a get out clause did you mean dirty bomb?

[i]fast breeder reactors[/i]

And how does new & all singing/dancing technology help us with existing waste?

Not trolling - just interested...

Edit: [i]"It's not a complete solution by any means"[/i] - exactly.

Until renewables are able to provide a base load to the National Grid (and assuming the population of the UK, for instance, wants constant power) we have to carry on using coal and gas, with nuclear. When the coal runs out in 150years, we'll have found something to provide us with sufficient constant energy. Until then, bridging technologies such as carbon capture and storage are crucial.

junkyard-as an environmental scientist, I'm probably a wee bit further up the path of understanding than an uneducated tree hugging crusty, but hey I'll be stupid if that helps to propagate your view of the world

dirty bomb you buffoon, not a nuclear bomb, jeeze do i have to teach you about terrorism as well?

And how does new & all singing/dancing technology help us with existing waste?

Not trolling - just interested...

Why should it?

Mind you, theoretically you could probably dig up old waste and use it as fuel, but it's almost certainly too expensive an option.

i edited without reading that though I assume you will choose not to believe that.

'Being an environmentalist was part of my identity and most of my friends were environmentalists

This is what pisses me off. 'Environmentalism' isn't some kind of cult where you wave a flag for its core beliefs. It's something you have to integrate into your life. Making out that science and progress are evil and bad is just stupid, and does not help anyone.

Any sensible person could see that GM could have massive environmental benefits. And to be honest, they do. It's just the smallminded zealots who go around dressed in alien suits making idiots of themselves.

Don't need to be a research scientist to spot a large white elephant.

It helps to see solutions to the problem though. (I think you mean elephant in the room btw).

Climate change is real and dangerous but...

When environmentalists refuse to take into account advances in technology and science, what they are preaching becomes dogma.

Nuclear is a perfect example of this. Rather than embrace how far the technology has moved on environmentalists drag the debate down using the tactics of fear.

The sorry fact is that climate change is now such a reality that nuclear accidents are a better alternative than continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere

It's not that what the greens want is wrong, it's the unintended consequences.

Eg, clamp down on pollution in western world companies = good.

But then the companies go broke or shift to importing goods from far eastern companies with no/minimal environmental safeguards.

All that has happened is the pollution (and the jobs) have been shifted to a different hemisphere.

There should be some sort of trade tariff to equalise product costs from overseas companies with local that accounted for the damage being done.

Environmentalism has helped bugger our economy but simply shifted where the damage is happening.

Tazzy Do i need to smack you about like an ill educated buffooon till you have learnt some manners?
😉
.

unfortunately there is a tendency for both sides of the "green issue" to have zealots that cling to their dogma without actually looking for a solution. what is needed is for open debate to look at all the possible solutions and to recognise that there will have to be a nasty messy compromise somewhere in the middle as an interim step towards the future.

Junkyard- Sorry didn't mean to get you all flustered and grumpy but this is such an easy wind up/trollage area I get a bit cheeky 😉

molgrips- I quite like your prius

[i]Why should it?[/i]

As in - [i]any[/i] new, all-singing, dancing technology...

[i]I think you mean elephant in the room btw[/i]

"White Elephant" as in potential taxpayer-funded clean-up costs, subsidy etc - although also conceivably a large elephant in the room, in that people seem to be unwilling to talk about it...

Not like you bob to only watch programmes you will agree with you are usually so open minded on these sort of things.

As you seem to be also Junkyard

unfortunately there is a tendency for both sides of the "green issue" to have zealots that cling to their dogma without actually looking for a solution

Human nature innit.

Personally, I'm pro nuclear. Yes there's waste, but it's got to be easier to deal with than the waste from traditional power, which tends to float off into the atmosphere and bugger up the climate.

molgrips- I quite like your prius

It does far to many miles tho. Wish I could keep it and myself at home all week.

which tends to float off into the atmosphere and bugger up the climate.

especially when you consider that emission discharge limits are not set by what is good for the environment but rather what large industry lobby groups say is an achievable goal or else they'll take their ball somewhere else.

As you seem to be also Junkyard

Personally, I'm pro nuclear. Yes there's waste, but it's got to be easier to deal with than the waste from traditional power, which tends to float off into the atmosphere and bugger up the climate.

Not to mention that coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which gets concentrated and pumped out in the fly ash. Pretty sure there are studies showing that coal power stations actually produce more radioactive waste per unit of energy produced than nuclear ones.

Mind you, theoretically you could probably dig up old waste and use it as fuel, but it's almost certainly too expensive an option.

I did read recently that the metal content of many older landfill sites means they could become economically viable to dig up.

There has always been two wings to the "green movement" - dark green and light green or fundamentalists / green consumers. A classic example - fabric conditioner. Do you use Ecover fabric conditier or do you not use any?

REduce, reuse, recycle

tthe only green answer IMO is to consume less

molgrips - Member

Any sensible person could see that GM could have massive environmental benefits.

Really? So far it has been exactyly the opposite. roundup ready maize requires more pesticides. GM is about profits for biotech companies - nothing else. There is absolutly no "green advantage" from it at all- the opposite infact - more pesticides and more fertiliser needed

Nuclear? Please tell me what the solution to the waste is? When you answer that then you can build more stations. Nucler also produces significant co2 in building the plants and extracting and refining the fuel

Spend the money that one nuclear power staion costs on energy efficiency then you save more energy that the nuclear power station produces.

base load can be provided - wave and tidal and burning coppiced woodland so long as planting is done. varius methods have been worked out for evening out power demand fluctuations such as local hot water thermal storage, pump storage and so on.

Again it comes down to "consume less" and "consumer smarter"

Again it comes down to "consume less" and "consumer smarter"

Totally agree. Unfortunately, we lack the political will to do this.

There has always been two wings to the "green movement" - dark green and light green or fundamentalists / green consumers

I'd say there's a third wing - green with purple sparkly bits sprinkled with fairy dust.

Any sensible person could see that GM could have massive environmental benefits.

Really? So far it has been exactyly the opposite.

I said COULD, and it's a big COULD.

GM is a technique to get plants to do what you want. The question is, what is it that you want them to do? It might be making tomatoes last longer on a supermarket shelf to help profitability, or it might be making crops grow well in drought conditions to help starving people in marginal farming areas.

It's just a tool. You can use it for 'good' or 'bad', doesn't matter. There are some risks associated with it though, many of which we may not know about. The sooner people realise that it's not simply big evil plot and let scientists get on with the research, the better we can increase our understanding and put it to good use.

Nuclear? Please tell me what the solution to the waste is?

What am I, a nuclear scientist? (which backs up another of my favourite points - that there's no point in us lot fannying on about things we don't really understand). Last thing I heard, vitrification was looking promising. It's a lot better than pumping it into the air like coal fired power stations do.

And you should know by now that I advocate huge reductions in energy consumption exactly as you advocate - I mention it near enough every thread. However we can't realistically get to zero consumption, and until we get down to the point when we can meet all our needs with renewables, nuclear seems to be the only option.

I watched the programme and the debate afterwards. You can see where the greens went wrong when you see people like Monbiot trying to espouse their cause - he seemed to be totally devoid of facts or information but insisted on talking over people with a load of waffle knowing that the gullible have already made up their minds. FoE and Greenpeace seemed to manage to come up with reasonably sane people in comparison but the overall impression many will have come away with is "bunch of nutters".

Remember that C4 have been pulled up several times for editing people's comments for the sake of dramatic telly at the expense of their actual meaning.

Monbiot usually has well reasoned and well backed up arguments all the way up to the point where he thinks we don't need big business and consumerism in any way.

It'd take a century to restructure the world economy, even if we all wanted to.

The debate was live, so I doubt if editing was the issue. Monbiot just comes across as someone who isn't prepared to listen or let the other side have their say because in his mind he is so obviously right. Now that may not be how he is (although I personally suspect it's pretty close to the truth) but that's how he came across.

Edit: And in a debate where the prime accusation is that Greens don't listen and aren't prepared to change their minds that's an unfortunate attitude to take.

[i]I hate driving and do negligible miles now, but i'm sure my carbon footprint is huge compared to someone living in the third world.[/i]

Yes it is, you've electricity, a computer, a ...

Do you want to live like the average person in the third world, I know I don't.

Fair enough, I did not see the show or the debate 🙂

I do think he needs to try and work with the system we have though, not against it.

monbiot came accross as biggoted and unrealistic as he claimed the programme makers to be, it would be nice to end all wars in Africa but helping farmers grow their own crops is probably a more realistic approach

and TJ you are talking bobbins about GM ignoring golden rice, flood resistant rice etc
youre emotive, irrational dislike of GM crops should be seperated from your dislike of big agribusiness, they are not the same, several of the GM crops in the programme were from public funded institutions

crop development whether carried out by crossbreeding or GM is just part of modern farming
the illusion that historical farmers were motivated by some come kind of altruistic good will to teh hungry rather than profit is just that.

as pointed out 30%? of USAs soya and maize is GM and the sky has not fallen in

[i] Unfortunately, we lack the political will to do this.[/i]

Also you lack a public mandate.

It's just a tool. You can use it for 'good' or 'bad', doesn't matter. There are some risks associated with it though, many of which we may not know about.

And there's the problem with every form of new technology. Genetic Engineering will be only ever as good as the Genetic Engineers. And do they think 50, 100, 500 years in the future? I doubt it.

The optimists always think 'look how clever we are, somebody will find a solution'. The pessimists look at past performance and extrapolate.

I do wonder sometimes if science creates new problems faster than it solves the old ones.

Surely ending wars in Africa is a prerequisite to helping them feed themselves?

I do wonder sometimes if science creates new problems faster than it solves the old ones.

Of course not. Modern farming and medicine have solved a lot of pretty damn big problems in a lot of the world. Not enough, granted. Remember, all the world was once like the third world.

And do they think 50, 100, 500 years in the future? I doubt it.

Of course they do. Scientists, contrary to popular belief, are not stupid.

kimbers - Member

and TJ you are talking bobbins about GM ignoring golden rice, flood resistant rice etc
youre emotive, irrational dislike of GM crops should be seperated from your dislike of big agribusiness, they are not the same, several of the GM crops in the programme were from public funded institutions

Green advantage?

Golden rice has advantages but it is not a green advantage. It does not reduce energy consumption which is the key thing is this debate

Classic muddy thinking from the exponents of GM crops 😉

Kimbers - monsanto deliberately contaminated the worlds soya - there is no GM free soya left now.

Hmmm. Molgrips I imagine you are one of those who thinks it's been nothing but human misery up until the 20th century?

Perhaps you are still waiting for your jetcar & hoverboots?

Yes modern farming & medecine has done some clever things. But it's given us a population level dependent on energy from under the ground, which is finite. So fun while it lasts but not necessarly sustainable. We didn't have the capability to radically affect the climate or end the world in a nuclear winter back then either.

Of course they do. Scientists, contrary to popular belief, are not stupid.

Of course they aren't stupid. But they are hardly altruistic either. How do they balance tomorow's share price against the effects on someone 20 generations down the line?

I hate driving and do negligible miles now, but i'm sure my carbon footprint is huge compared to someone living in the third world.

Im sure it is, personal car use only accounts for around 5% of total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions anyway, although more like 10% in Britain, all transport combined accounts for around 14% of greenhouse gas emissions, generally climatologists dont consider transport to be the main problem, the power generated for heating our homes produces around 40% of emissions and ruminants about 21%, so put on a jumper and eat less beef and lamb if you want to reduce your carbon footprint.

There are some risks associated with it though, many of which we may not know about. The sooner people realise that it's not simply big evil plot and let scientists get on with the research, the better we can increase our understanding and put it to good use.

GM crops looks like the last thing we should be worrying about now (I'll still sit on the fence with this one - I can see their potential but I am not a fan of messing with 'nature'). The synthetic biology and geo-engineering bit at the end looked far bigger issues to worry about. One such example being setting off a Pinotubo sized volcano each year to keep the climate cool. Now that is proper mental, it's difficult enough keeping control of a river once we have 'played' with it but a volcano.