December 2010

L 'Ecopragmatismo Stewart Brand

now happens frequently to attend the pro-nuclear statements by authoritative figures from the world of scientific culture and in some cases, even in obvious changes of course by someone who, until recently, he declared a bitter enemy.

has caused an uproar in Italy the choice in favor of this technology by Professor Umberto Veronesi, and just yesterday the statements of James Hansen, an astrophysicist and professor of Earth sciences at Columbia University, which confirmed to support nuclear power because, to date, we have the best of alternative technologies to mitigate the ongoing climate change caused, also, the use of fossil fuels.

The opportunity to address this issue I got from reading a text recently published in Italy entitled "A care for the Earth - a Manifesto ecopragmatista" (Code Publishing, pp.350, €. 23,00) of Stewart Brand, a founder of the American environmental movement and that, as a convinced opponent of nuclear power, in his book tries to explain why he changed his mind about .

In USA the book has aroused great controversy because the author is not limited to supporting nuclear power but also speaks in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

E 'recognized the position of the Friends of the Earth against these two technologies so why deal with such a reading?

I am deeply convinced that it is important to try to listen to those who have ideas different from ours: this may have a double benefit: improved or strengthened our beliefs contrary to repent until we have time to do so.

E 'in this spirit that I faced a difficult read in part, sometimes too technical for my knowledge, but sometimes very stimulating and constructive.

Brand is not a charlatan and, mindful of criticism that will raining over as a result of its arguments, trying to prevent them taking apart piece by piece and with absolute scientific rigor all possible arguments on the issues he faces.

He starts from a premise shared and now indisputable: climate change on Earth is in place and man must find solutions to the problem, not solve it, do not now, but at least to reduce it.

Brand also makes another statement that I agree: there is a problem for humans, the Earth in any case he would manage. The question therefore is not saving the planet, but to preserve existing species.

geological studies show that 55 million years ago the present Arctic Ocean had an average temperature of 23 ° C and that the entire planet was probably characterized by a tropical climate. The risk for us is to return to that state of things.

suggeriteci strategies to address climate change are three.

Mitigation: by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Adaptation: through the displacement of coastal populations to the north, the development of drought resistant crops and prepare to welcome the masses of environmental refugees.

Improvement: through geoengineering interventions on a large scale (in the latter part of his book Brand makes a long list).

The problem is us, we said: man currently consumes about 16 terawatt of electricity , much of which comes from the use of fossil fuels is like leaving lit 160 000 000 000 100-watt bulbs without switching it off ever!

To maintain the level of CO2 concentration below the limit of no return we should be able to produce electricity from fossil fuels in just 3 terawatt, which means that we should produce all the electricity we need the rest through non-fossil sources and above all that we get at most within the next 25 years.

Brand cites some examples in this regard.

For 2 terawatt of solar should install 100 square feet the second solar cell for the next 25 years, 2 terawatt of solar thermal power 50 square meters per second, 2 terawatt biofuels 4 Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae per second for 2 terawatt of wind energy a wind turbine of 90 meters diameter every 5 minutes, 2 to 3 terawatt of geothermal steam turbines of 100 megawatts per day and 3 terawatt of nuclear power plant reactors with 3 from 3 gigawatts per week, everything always multiplied by 25 years!

"A cure for the Earth" aims to offer a series of tools that environmentalists have always been wary but now, according to the author, are essential if we want to do something to protect the future of our species.

In the chapter devoted to the theme of 'urbanization , Brand argues that cities are a source of wealth, they absorb the population and help to increase the carrying capacity of the Earth. Cities are expensive, both environmentally and economically, but revenues are by far outweigh the costs. In urban areas, promoting new forms of income production is much easier, and provide services is much cheaper: just think of education, health, conditions of hygiene, water, electrical power per capita basis and everything is much easier statement. Brand, in support of its argument cites the " Kleiber's Law": the larger bodies, the higher their metabolic efficiency.

For cities is the same: bring people together makes everything more efficient, it requires a slightly lower amount of everything for everyone. The city may even be a price control for population control. In fact, statistics show that the low birth rate is more sensitive in cities than in sparsely populated areas of the planet. In urban areas, in fact, the economic contribution of children is virtually absent and, as women always capture greater economic opportunities, the social cost of reproduction increases.

E 'starting from this basis that Stewart Brand is seeking to develop its new concept of "urban ecology " as one of potential solutions to the problems of pollution.

When it comes to climate change, the more informed people are more frightened, and in case of nuclear power the best informed are the least frightened.

E 'Brand with this incipit that tackles the most controversial chapter of his book, or one dedicated to nuclear . He admits I did a few years ago part of the large group of environmentalists against nuclear power and have changed my mind about it after visiting the waste repository at Yucca Mountain (the U.S. government recently established its permanent closure). According to the American scientist's main argument used against the nuclear waste management or what, it makes little sense since the main error incurred by the environmentalists is to always think in terms of the contemporary problem. At present, the waste can, he admits, be a problem, but how can we think that technology is the same man in 200 years when, and only then, can potentially waste become dangerous? It also makes mention of a new approach to developing in the near future that provides for the use of drilling at great depths (4-5 km) in the bedrock where the water is very saline and cram the bars where fuel forgetting the problem. He further claims that the new reactors are built with technologies to ensure the safety of installations in the past was not there. On the problem of the excessive costs of construction, he argues that in fact the real problem is the costs are too low on coal and also advocates the establishment of a "carbon tax " or a fee emissions of greenhouse gases whose revenues are but now used for the benefit of citizens and incentive of all "clean" technologies. Also, if it is true that a nuclear power plant has enormous costs in its start-up is equally true that its operating costs were also much lower compared to those of coal or gas. The so-called Generation IV reactors are fueled with thorium, three times more abundant than uranium, which can not be melted, can not be used for the manufacture of weapons and generates little waste, construction and lower operating costs, increased efficiency, and Finally, high temperatures can generate hydrogen and desalinate the water.

Basically, Brand, as do J. Hansen says that in the absence of anything better, nuclear power in this historical moment can be a viable alternative, one possible solution, certainly not the only one to try to mitigate the problems related to emissions of greenhouse gases, starting also from the fact that current alternative energy such as wind and solar today are not able to guarantee the continuity of production necessary for example to cities that need a power supply providing constant energy.

The objections that I can do about Brand three aspects. The first ties in the Italian context. Our country has uranium deposits, and therefore the construction of nuclear power plants may reduce our impact on the environment, certainly not one of economic dependence on other countries, from which we will inevitably need to buy fuel for the operation of new power plants. The second point concerns the vexed issue of waste management: think it a bit 'too simplistic the idea that in 200 years, what today is a problem, the man likely to have addressed and resolved. Also, unfortunately, inevitably nuclear technology will be a selective technology, linked to specific skills in fact continue to divide the world between countries can handle it, and make big profits and other economic condemned to suffer it, paying the political, social and economic issues.

The writer then addresses the delicate question GMOs.

Again, he cites a long list of cases and situations for the benefit of its arguments. Invite interested parties to read the book to be able to calmly assess specifically the brand positioning. I limit myself, for obvious reasons of space to mention only a few of many examples that he does.

" E 'being - says S. Brand - the biggest since 1996 dietary experiment in history. A huge group of people - the entire population of North America - had the courage to start eating large amounts of genetically engineered foods. (....) Meanwhile, the control group (the European population) has made considerable financial sacrifice to do without these crops and has also taken the trouble to ban all imports of these foods. (....) Now the results are ready and uncontroversial. The experimental group and control group did not differ. "

the same brand as it tries to explain in everyday life we \u200b\u200bare constantly invaded by continuous examples of genetic modification without this puts us on alert: Do not feel any revulsion at the thought of a mule, a cross between a horse and unnatural a donkey, not to mention that the greatest human genetic engineering firm, the conversion of very useful herb in the world's most popular food plants, maize, was carried out by pre-Columbian Indians.

Every process in the biosphere is influenced by the ability of microbes to transform the world around them. They are the microbes that convert the key elements of life - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur - essentially accessible to all other life forms. " Every few minutes - still supports Brand - all microbes in the body (and in the oceans, soil and air) defied the care and God doing an unlawful act in Europe: exchange of genes in the ceaseless search benefits competitive or cooperative. "

Genetic engineers have not invented anything - according to the theory of Stewart Brand, but borrowed recombination. Imagine being in a bar and a touch of green-haired boy, and so become part of his genetic code. Emerge from the bar with green hair and we can pass the gene of green hair even to our children. The bacteria responsible for continue this type of rapid acquisition of genes. Sometimes the examples of nature can be very constructive for us. Recently, scientists have been trying to imitate the miraculous bioreactor present in the gut of termites, where the complex bacterial colony that resides there is able to transform a sheet of paper in common than 1.5 liters of hydrogen.

In fact, if we think of the potential applications that may have to repeat this process on a large scale, I must admit that in this case he would be right.

For Brand, however, declare themselves in favor of genetic engineering does not mean being opposed to ' farming which are still recognized the great merits. In fact he comes to suggest that perhaps the solution will be to manage to combine in the near future the two technologies: genetic engineering can be used to produce seeds with improved resistance to pests and pathogens, while the ' Organic farming can manage the complex of pests more effectively while reducing the impact of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides on soil, water and wildlife.

The text does not fail to refer polemic against the world environmentalist accused the author of be too tied to their ideologies and not being willing to change even before the evidence of the facts. Again, I admit, not all of the allegations were outlandish.

At the same time, however, he believes, however, still valued the role that environmentalists will take in the near future as long as you leave the overly romantic streak that has always been part of the movement which tends to be generally pessimistic.

Environmentalists romantic, according to Brand, have a tendency to feel a certain discomfort with those who try to solve the problem, since the essence of tragedy is the fact he is unable to solve. E romantic love problems ...

And on the other hand, environmentalists also have a romantic role: to attract people around him, to involve them emotionally and then to inspire.

According Brand new pragmatic environmentalism should try to involve more and more of the other two categories: scientists who discover the problems and engineers who generally try to solve the problems.

In essence, the ecopragmatismo suggested by Brand invites us all to expand the coverage with which to evaluate our activities in favor of saving the planet. What do, the activities in which we are working will go well beyond the duration of our lives and may affect the future of hundreds of generations. E 'with this perspective that we evaluate it.

We must have the courage to rethink and to always put into question our ideas to this end, the message that I would share with the author of the book.

Maybe some of us have cried wolf too often, the wolf, with the result of seeing discredited his credibility as a prophet of doom, perhaps a little more optimistic as we may be of help to all in long road ahead of us, however, remains in me the belief that a healthy precautionary principle should always be applied by anyone, even the eco-pragmatists.

Philip Tetlock, a psychologist and political scientist, wrote: "How do you think , has more than what you think .

Michele Salvadori

Make Up For Beginners

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

How Long Does Deodorant

Homemade Yugioh Decks For Sale

Monday, December 13, 2010

List Of Pokemon And Shiny Color

#### Facial Compilation

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Confirmation Letter Of Visa Appointment

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Diabetic Breakthrough 2010