Bloody hell, I need to get a life!

But actually, all I want to do is get on quietly with having my life (and allowing others to do the same), and that is severely under threat – from climate change, from nuclear power, from resource depletion, you name it. So either I act, or I do nothing and accept my “fate” as handed to me.

One thing I know for sure is that there are plenty of rich, powerful bastards, who couldn’t give a shit whether I live or die. So I’m fucked (in every sense of the word) if I simply play by their rules and go along with what they want me to do.

Disobedience truly is a lifestyle choice – because to obey is to do nothing more than walk like lambs to the slaughter.

Those in between have cause to learn/be stimulated, but there’s no argument to be had with those reactionaries that ascribe political agendas to others – phrases referring to motes in eyes, and “physician, heal thy self” come to mind.
Which means: as an anarchist, you need to contend with the fact that inspite of a slowly unfolding falling-off-the-precipice, the ruling classes’ functionaire lickspittles will be fighting tooth-and-nail, or rather inciting others to so do.

FBRs are a known technology these days, however, since pressurized water reactor (PWRs) are cheaper to build than FBRs commerically, FBRs have yet to be a more profitable option until the Uranium-235 begins to run out.

Sure, a “known technology” as in proven that the idea works on a small scale – I wasn’t saying otherwise. But are there any existing FBRs (or any reactors using alternative fuels to enriched U-235) which are being run commercially and supplying power to national grids?

I tried to find examples of any, and couldn’t – and I’m usually pretty good at finding information online.

Are you saying that in a few decades, FBRs will become more economically viable than PWRs etc. and at that point we’ll be seeing them built everywhere?

Because from what I’ve read, it’s not just a problem of profitability. Eg. because the core density is much higher in a FBR than a PWR, the chance of the reactor going critical and into meltdown is not only increased, but can happen a lot quicker – like minutes, rather than hours.

Plus there’s the problem of using sodium as a coolant, since sodium reacts violently with both water and air, so can potentially easily catch fire (as happened at the Japanese Monju FBR).

While I’m sure these problems can be more-or-less overcome, it only takes one meltdown to wipe out a small country. If we start building thousands of potentially rather unstable FBRs (which are already more expensive and harder to build, so budget constraints may have to stretch even thinner) everywhere, then isn’t the chance of a meltdown somewhere going to be greatly increased?

I’m no mathematical genius or economist, but it still seems to me to be more than just a financial problem. The technology may be “proven” (as in known to work on an experimental basis) but is it working on a commercial scale anywhere yet, or is it safe to attempt to do so? As far as I can establish, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding “no”.

You are correct in that thorium based TBRs are experimental. India is working to develop TBR technology in order to benefit from its vast supplies of Thorium. However, India additionally has other commerical PWR reactors with a prototype FBR reactor constructed back in 1985.

I’m afraid I can’t see anything remarkable about that. India is working to develop TBRs and has a prototype FBR, as well as a bunch of traditional PWR reactors.

Nothing about that says that FBRs / TBRs are already working on a commercial scale. In fact, it seems to support more what I’m saying: that they’re still very much an unproven technology, at least for commercial-scale use.

This is really a different debate. You can make the argument that nuclear power stations are best maintained in govt hands. However, I would note that the only serious nuclear catastrophe was Chernobyl, which was in govt hands.

Sure it’s a different debate – but it’s a significant one!

Plenty of evidence points to both governments and corporations being hopelessly inept, downright reckless and utterly untrustworthy with how they address the safety of populations and the environment. (Look no further than their approach to climate change!)

Have you seen The Corporation? Definitely recommended viewing.

Given that I ascribe roughly equal levels of trust to governments and corporations (as in, I don’t trust either in the slightest, and am wary of people who ignore the alarm bells and do), then I think it’s fair to say that neither should be trusted to run nuclear power stations.

To provide another perspective, as an anarchist, I also don’t think that anarchists (aka. a community organising itself without leaders) should be trusted to run nuclear power stations. There’d be no profit motive, but someone might forget to do something, or incorrectly assume that it had already been taken care of by someone else! (Hey, I’ve never, ever claimed that anarchy was perfect!)

What I’m saying is, still, that I think there’s quite a strong case to argue that nobody can be safely given the responsibility of running nuclear power plants.

Maybe I’m wrong about that. But what are the odds of catastrophe if I’m wrong, compared to the odds of catastrophe if you’re (nuclear power plant safety believers) wrong?

What are the odds of catastrophe (eg. mass starvation) if we simply learn to live with less of an energy supply? Isn’t it just a case of weighing up what’s actually important: corporate profits, a decent life for everybody, a sustainable future.

Nuclear power may provide power to help people out of poverty, but actually, the power needed to help people out of poverty is pretty minimal, because most people’s actual needs are pretty minimal, and can be met from within a (non-oppressed) community! Nuclear power is mostly about providing the energy required to keep industry going, and keep corporate profits coming in.

So it still seems to me like there’s a pretty clear case for having less industrialisation and using significantly less power overall and still giving people the means to eradicate poverty, rather than “having” to go the nuclear route.

We have a choice: We do not have to go the nuclear route!

And again, I ask (to anybody): What constitutes an “acceptable” standard of living when framed in terms of our very survival?

We need to change our ideas about what is “acceptable” and admit that our material wants (not needs for living) have gone too way far, and that they can never be achieved by all – even given infinite nuclear power. (Because of other resources being depleted, and because of just how much industry is trashing our only life support system in so many other ways beyond just simple power generation.)

The fast breeder reactors (FBRs) you are referring to as prototypes are thorium based, they should be more appropriately named thermal breeder reactors (TBRs). Traditional FBRs use Uranium-238 of which the prototype reactors were made back in the 1950s. FBRs are a known technology these days, however, since pressurized water reactor (PWRs) are cheaper to build than FBRs commerically, FBRs have yet to be a more profitable option until the Uranium-235 begins to run out.

“Your link is from 1996, so I think I can get away with posting this one from 2001. I’m sure stuff has changed a bit since then, but the article seems to be in line with things as far as I’ve been able to find out (though maybe I’m wrong). Anyway, brief synopsis: fast breeders are still very much an unproven technology.”

You are correct in that thorium based TBRs are experimental. India is working to develop TBR technology in order to benefit from its vast supplies of Thorium. However, India additionally has other commerical PWR reactors with a prototype FBR reactor constructed back in 1985.

“Finally, I’m really not sure it’s a good idea to allow profit-turning corporations to control things which could potentially explode and kill millions of people.”

This is really a different debate. You can make the argument that nuclear power stations are best maintained in govt hands. However, I would note that the only serious nuclear catastrophe was Chernobyl, which was in govt hands.

I’ve recently reduced my impact from 30 to ~25 tonnes C02 per year. There’s really not that much I can do personally to reduce it further without new technology becoming available. Development of which technology happens to be part of my job.

I know there are a whole bunch of different ways of calculating personal CO2 emissions, but I don’t think your reduction is as impressive as you seem to believe. Actually, I almost think there must be a mistake in your figures, because they seem too big (though not unattainable)!

Last time I calculated my personal emissions (cross-referenced between a few different online calculators) around a year ago, they were about 3-4 tonnes per year.

If you like, add on the ~5 tonnes per year (can’t quite remember where I found that figure, sorry) that each person in the UK is responsible for due to the infrastructure of the country.

So my total CO2 emissions per year are something like 8-9 tonnes, the majority of which comes from things that other people are doing “on my behalf” (often against my will, because I’d be sent to prison if I earned money and didn’t pay the tax that supports them, though I’m working on that part as well, finding non-monetary ways of living so as to reduce my involvement in the tax system even further).

The UK average personal emissions level is 10.92 tonnes, and the US average is 19 tonnes, according to this article in the Independent.

So your 25 tonnes per year isn’t particularly great. In fact, I’m kinda struggling to work out what sort of lifestyle you’d have to live to produce that much in the way of emissions, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt as I can’t believe your personal emissions would actually be that high!? (Are you sure they are?)

Incidentally, this is an interesting site which shows by when during 2008 the average UK citizen will have emitted as much as a citizen from another country will during the whole year:

http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/climate/calendar/

Wheras you flat out refuse to do anything about your hundreds of tonnes per year.

I don’t know what on Earth you’re talking about. I really don’t! Seems like just a baseless accusation, unless you can explain where you got that figure from?

Even incidental elements of your anarchist lifestyle, like being anti-nuclear, are too important to you to compromise for something as trivial as global warming.

Again, you’re not making a lot of sense – not least because you don’t actually know very much about me!

I am constantly analysing many (undoubtedly not all) aspects of my life to work out how I could reduce my emissions and resource consumption. Sure, I’m not doing absolutely everything I can, but I don’t think anyone is being expected to work out and eliminate all aspects of their CO2 emissions!

As long as we keep them to an equitable amount (which can be calculated using the Contraction and Convergence model) within limits that the Earth can safely sustain, we should be OK. That means we in the UK have to emit quite a lot less, and others around the poorer parts of the world can increase their emissions, so we all arrive at the same per capita levels.

I’m doing quite a lot to limit my emissions, and I’m still above the level I need to be at (which I’ve seen quoted as both 1 or 2 tonnes per person per year). But I’m currently laying the foundations which will enable me to genuinely reduce my emissions further – it’s all a work in progress (and will always be that way too, even once I reach my “target” level).

For a start, it would cut the numbers of the 26,000 people killed by coal mining annually in China.

In the medium term, reducing our emissions by ~80% while maintaining a lifestyle China, India and the rest of the world will not reject as unacceptable is the only alternative that doesn’t involve deaths on at least a WWII scale.

I think it’s fairly clear that creation of an “acceptable” lifestyle (by Western standards) for that many people is going to result in the extinction of the entire of humanity and much more besides. So, what constitutes an “acceptable” lifestyle when framed in terms of our very survival? (Perhaps the freedom to all listen to our iPods and drink champagne as we burn?)

It’s clear we’re going to have to adjust our definition of what’s an “acceptable” lifestyle, because if we don’t, then our “acceptable” lifestyle is going to ultimately be rather short lived.

Still, many of the world’s people are already living an acceptable (to them) lifestyle without polluting and consuming as much as we do – hence the abundance of happy Bhutanese peasants. We need to learn lessons from them about how to live our lives.

Which again, doesn’t mean we have go get rid of all mod cons. My girlfriend interviewed (for a radio programme she produced) a guy called Donnachadh McCarthy who has reduced his personal emissions to beyond the necessary levels, and still has things like a washing machine etc.

There’s also a report just out yesterday from respected respected energy consultants Pöyry, which apparently lays out in detail how it is entirely possible to meet emissions reductions targets and meet our energy needs in the UK without resorting to building new coal-fired power plants.

I haven’t seen the full report yet, so that’s only what I’ve been told it says, but it also appears to be saying that we can do it without increasing our reliance on nuclear power, if I’m interpreting the graph on the flyer correctly (although it also seems to be saying we’ll be using more CCGT gas power stations).

I’m looking forward to finding out more about it, anyway.

I have to admit, I definitely don’t want to give up computers, TV, fruit, education, holidays, hospitals, electricity, and so on. A 20% reduction is one thing, but try cutting 80% simply by living less well and you cut out a lot of non-fat.

I don’t know. By the sounds of things, you could cut out a lot and still be living a more consumerist lifestyle than the average American!!

I simply don’t agree with your either/or analysis – it’s not nuclear or nothing. There is middle ground in the situation, and we will be able to continue to have many aspects of our lives that we have grown accustomed to.

But personally, I intend to demonstrate that it’s possible to have a great lifestyle without destroying the Earth, and to eventually offer myself as an example of one way it can be done, in order to help other people do it too. If it can’t be sustained over generations and generations, then it isn’t good enough.

The way I figure it, neither do 99.999% of people across the planet – I’m probably slightly below average in my liking for such things, whereas your desire to live as a Bhutanese peasant is an extreme minority even in the rich west, let alone amongst those whose parents or grandparents lived something like that.

Sure, I never said I was “normal” – whatever that means! Different ways of living make different people happy. I long to simplify a lot of aspects of my life, because they are too complicated and they ultimately don’t make me happy.

But I don’t think it has to be such a solid line in the sand. I see no reason why I can’t interchange different bits of my life, so that as well as aiming for a high degree of self-sufficiency, I can also have a computer (if I still want one – maybe I won’t) and so on.

That means I don’t see any way of you getting what you want short of some form of totalitarian, probably genocidal state, a la Pol Pott.

I know you don’t want that, but I am not sure you have fully thought through the consequences of not wanting that.

I don’t think anyone really knows, or has fully thought through everything – not even those in power. The point is, in many ways at the moment, we’re being denied even the opportunity to try.

I could make you a list as long as your arm of the lengths corporations and states go to in order to stop us from realising our own potential and our own inner power – to organise without them, to lead fulfilling lives away from their ability to leech from our efforts, and to generally be free (as in true freedom, to do pretty much whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm others). They will not allow us to experience this, because to do so would undermine everything they stand for.

Any threats to the status quo are demonised, crushed and lied about as soon as they appear, because there’s nothing the state dislikes more than the threat of a good example. This has happened sooooo many times I’m not even going to bother making a list for you! (Spend an hour reading Chomsky and you’ll become acquainted with a few such cases.)

digitalcntrl @ 77:

This is somewhat misleading…Uranium 235 used in lightwater reactors is indeed scarce, however, fast breeder reactors such as those in India use Uranium 238 whose supply can meet the world’s power needs for billions of years.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

OK, interesting point, however I think you’re also being slightly misleading.

To the best of my current knowledge on the subject, the fast breeder reactors (as opposed to just breeder reactors) that would make this possible still do not exist as anything other than prototypes, and the ability to do it on a commercial scale has not been proven yet (and has suffered quite a few major problems which might suggest it never will be). If I’m wrong about that then please let me know, because in doing my own research on the subject, I still can’t seem to find a conclusive statement one way or the other.

Your link is from 1996, so I think I can get away with posting this one from 2001. I’m sure stuff has changed a bit since then, but the article seems to be in line with things as far as I’ve been able to find out (though maybe I’m wrong). Anyway, brief synopsis: fast breeders are still very much an unproven technology.

See also this piece which seems to provide quite a good, relatively current assessment (2006).

Maybe the technology will be there eventually, but as far as I’m aware it’s not there yet.

I presume the fast breeder in India you refer to is the one at Kalpakkam, which is also only a prototype.

All of this is just as far as I know from my own online research, so if I’m wrong or out of date, please correct me.

I’m still very concerned about our ability to safely store nuclear waste. However, if it is genuinely the case that nuclear could meet our power “requirements” (though again, I ask you to consider who it is that decides those “requirements”, and whether most of them aren’t just dressed up “wants”) then I might not be quite so against it.

But the risks are still very big, and I still think it’s completely impossible to justify creating mountains of radioactive, toxic waste just so we can have what we want now. I also think that if unstable Fast Breeder reactors are involved (which so far seem to stray pretty close to meltdown or other major safety problems, because the margins within which they operate are much smaller), the probability of a catastrophic nuclear accident increases again, so it’ll still be too dangerous to consider.

Finally, I’m really not sure it’s a good idea to allow profit-turning corporations to control things which could potentially explode and kill millions of people. We all know that they cut corners in order to keep the shareholders happy, and as I mentioned before, insurance companies won’t touch nuclear power, which again means that the public end up taking the risk if it goes wrong. Ultimately, a trans-national corporation really doesn’t have that much to lose by gambling on the safety of some random factor which could wipe out the population of a country. So some company’s name gets trashed by a nuclear accident? They just continue under the banner of it’s sister companies.

Do we trust them enough not to put profits ahead of our safety, when really, the risks and costs of cleanup are mostly borne by us? Were we born yesterday!?

This is somewhat misleading…Uranium 235 used in lightwater reactors is indeed scarce, however, fast breeder reactors such as those in India use Uranium 238 whose supply can meet the world’s power needs for billions of years.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

Wheras you flat out refuse to do anything about your hundreds of tonnes per year. Even incidental elements of your anarchist lifestyle, like being anti-nuclear, are too important to you to compromise for something as trivial as global warming.

Building new nuclear plants here is going to make it just sooooooooo much better for them, isn’t it Soru?

For a start, it would cut the numbers of the 26,000 people killed by coal mining annually in China.

In the medium term, reducing our emissions by ~80% while maintaining a lifestyle China, India and the rest of the world will not reject as unacceptable is the only alternative that doesn’t involve deaths on at least a WWII scale.

Altruism my arse! You want nuclear power because you want to maintain your way of life for you.

I have to admit, I definitely don’t want to give up computers, TV, fruit, education, holidays, hospitals, electricity, and so on. A 20% reduction is one thing, but try cutting 80% simply by living less well and you cut out a lot of non-fat.

The way I figure it, neither do 99.999% of people across the planet – I’m probably slightly below average in my liking for such things, whereas your desire to live as a Bhutanese peasant is an extreme minority even in the rich west, let alone amongst those whose parents or grandparents lived something like that.

That means I don’t see any way of you getting what you want short of some form of totalitarian, probably genocidal state, a la Pol Pott.

I know you don’t want that, but I am not sure you have fully thought through the consequences of not wanting that.

You claim to be worried about the risk, but can’t help admitting there even when there is none, you want to kill off nuclear as part of some mad scheme to force society to live the way you want.

Are you even reading the same website as me? Or are you just making shit up, so you can “beat” me in debate?

I never said there is no risk. I believe the chance of future generations being stuck with a mountain of radioactive waste they can’t contain is practically a certainty. Just because that mountain of waste already exists and already cannot be safely dealt with (see the previous link I posted to that report), should we go on adding to it?

How many people are you prepared to have starve to death on the bet that in 50 years, not one single new relevant technology will be developed? Are you prepared to start stacking up the corpses now, so confident are you that fusion, solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, wave and 20 more exotic forms of energy will all not pan out?

How many people are you prepared to kill in the future because the waste from your nuclear plants (so you could have what you want, now) cannot be contained?

Not to mention, yet-a-fucking-gain because you are apparently immune to reading it, that usable uranium reserves will run out in 60 years at the current rate of consumption, and this time will be significantly less if we rely on it for more of our energy supplies.

Also, if you’d been actually reading what I wrote, you’d have noticed that I’m in favour of solar, tidal, wind, wave (and also geothermal, though I didn’t mention that one) energy. Stop putting your assumptions and incorrect words in my mouth!

The technologies I support are those that won’t have catastrophic results if they “don’t work out”, and also don’t produce mountains of radioactive, toxic waste. And also, don’t depend on known finite resources simply to flop us over to the same problem again in a couple of decades.

How does your solution deal with anything, other than perhaps buying us a little time and allowing you to continue consuming willy-nilly, making it someone else’s problem if you are lucky enough?

Let me ask you this:

Will you, or will you not, reduce your own consumption of resources and energy, in order to ensure our survival, and to work towards a more equitable standard of living for everybody, worldwide?

As privileged westerners, you and I are rich enough to mach the choice of having elss stuff. Thing is, you don’t get to make that decision for the Chinese, Indians and Africans, no matter how deliriously happy you imagine them being starving to death in a hut.

Delude yourself all you like. Your continued consumption is not helping their situation – it is contributing directly to their poverty and oppression.

Again, I ask: Could everybody live like you – even given nuclear power? No, they could not.

Building new nuclear plants here is going to make it just sooooooooo much better for them, isn’t it Soru? Just like GM grops are all about feeding the starving masses, eh? Pull the other one!

Time to grow a spine, Soru, and admit that you and your way of life are part of the problem, and that you’re absolutely content for it to remain that way. In fact, as long as you get to have more toys than the other kids, you might even consider letting them play with you once in a while.

Altruism my arse! You want nuclear power because you want to maintain your way of life for you.

Perhaps if you’d just confirm or deny this is the case, then we can stop going round in circles, and this discussion can move on.

Yes, I know there are safer reactor designs (gravity drop, pebble bed, etc) but I would rather do without

The problem with posting such long blocks of text is that you can’t help contradicting yourself. You claim to be worried about the risk, but can’t help admitting there even when there is none, you want to kill off nuclear as part of some mad scheme to force society to live the way you want.

The only risk you are concerned with is the risk that it will work, and allow people to go on living the lives they want, not submitting to you as Dictator of All.

Why are you incapable of grasping this idea – that uranium is a finite resource, and with even the most modern reactor designs, will be used up in around 60 years at the current rate of consumption?

How many people are you prepared to have starve to death on the bet that in 50 years, not one single new relevant technology will be developed? Are you prepared to start stacking up the corpses now, so confident are you that fusion, solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, wave and 20 more exotic forms of energy will all not pan out?

Any individual technology may not work out, but it seems a very long shot that none will.

and might mean you’ll have less stuff,

As privileged westerners, you and I are rich enough to make the choice of having eses stuff. Thing is, you don’t get to make that decision for the Chinese, Indians and Africans, no matter how deliriously happy you imagine them being starving to death in a hut.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your argument?

We can’t change our origins – only our destinies. I don’t think it’s contradictory in the slightest to dislike the society I was brought into against my will, and strive to change it to one that I wish to live in.

I also don’t think it’s contradictory to speak from our experience of this type of society, and warn others around the world that it’s absolutely not as rosy as it seems, and that we should perhaps be taking a page from their books and simplifying our lives again. (In fact, I think resource depletion and pollution will soon make this our only viable choice – either that or perpetual war over anything that is left.)

You are part of modern society, and get education, healthcare, policing and defence for free, and most other essentials in exchange for historically tiny amounts of man-hours of labour.

The “education” I received was designed to turn me into a worker, like everybody else.

The healthcare – which I actually think is very good in this country – could still be adequately provided from within the community, if the social conditions were different and people’s relationship to work and money changed a bit. Like the way the Zapatistas organise their health care from within their own communities.

Police – utter scum who we don’t need, and managed just fine without (hence the protests at their inception, because the public feared that in time, they would become exactly what they have become today – a political police force used to crush dissent). Capitalism creates it’s own crime and it’s own greed, and this is used to legitimise the “need” for a police force. We do not need a police force. It’s middle-class institution that exists to protect middle-class values that have brought us all this trouble in the first place. Stick middle-class values where they belong in the dustbin of history, and we won’t need a police force.

Defence – don’t make me laugh! What enemy? The enemies that exist because people worldwide allow others to “rule” over them and blind them with offers of small pieces of wealth and power, rather than just sorting things out peacefully and fairly. There is no enemy other than the ones that the current system allows to exist. (Sure, propped up by patriotic mass-media, military displays, delusions of grandeur, corporate self-interest, appealing to people using emotional language about “honour” and “valour” etc. but it’s all bullshit.)

Policing and defence are entirely unnecessary and given the choice (and the genuine possibility) of opting out from their so-called “protection”, I would gladly do so, as would plenty of other people I know. We pay for it only because we are coerced into doing so, and it is not wanted or needed by vast numbers of us.

The education we have is a sham, designed to dumb us down and churn out uniform workers who will unquestioningly support capitalist interests. Real education (as I have mentioned on a previous thread) can take place without the existence of any mandatory schooling. In fact, I’m going to be spending the next 18 or so years allowing my child the space, resources and encouragement to educate themselves in the areas that they wish to pursue.

Besides, there’s no such thing as “free”. Our taxes pay for those things, and they could be far better organised without politicians and the gutter press interfering to maintain their own interests.

“Historically tiny amounts of man-hours”… again, not so. After the initial set-up time (building houses, sorting out fields etc.) almost any one of us should be able to live in a self-sufficient community on less than four hours work per day. Not to mention that work which is directly to meet your own and your community’s needs is fun, and generally doesn’t feel like work – more like play.

Fuck, I’ve had a brilliant time cleaning out the compost shitters on a few sites I’ve been on! Not that I’d want to do it every day, but when you’re working to meet the needs of yourself and your community, even shovelling other people’s shit and piss can become an enjoyable (and humorous) way to spend a day’s work.

So I simply don’t agree with your assessment of the situation.

If you want to keep it, then fine, but it is not for me, and I don’t see why people who wish to live the way I wish to live should be made to suffer (in terms of pollution, community displacement to meet capitalist objectives, poisoning of the biosphere with genetically modified crops, danger from nuclear radiation leaks etc.) just so that you can enjoy a way of life which shits all over the majority of people alive on Earth. Nobody should be able to do that, and we’ve been doing it for far too long already.

You want to spot the authoritarianism and so-called “eco-fascism” inherent in this? It’s not from those wishing to live a simple life, mate! It’s from those who will take whatever they want for themselves, pollute and rape the Earth to provide for their own energy and material “needs”, and not give a flying fuck about others or future generations.

So no offence, but fuck the type of society you wish to live in! It is incapable of existing without making it impossible for those of us who wish to return to a simple, non-polluting, non-authoritarian way of life, away from your ideas about how the world should be.

A Bhutanese peasant, untouched by western civilisation, does not have those options, is less free. They can’t choose to become an anarchist, or even a citizen.

They’re also the happiest country on Earth. I would swap my (generally quite enjoyable) existence here for an existence as a simple Bhutanese peasant in the blink of an eye, if I believed that their society would truly be able to sustain itself in the face of the rest of the world going crazy.

Again, I don’t care if this isn’t for you. But realise and admit that the decisions made in the West have far-reaching consequences, that will in time, make it impossible for those who wish to remain as simple peasants (or tribal societies) to continue to do so.

Western “freedom” undemocratically forcing it’s way all over the world, where it is not wanted – because it’s thirst for resources is unquenchable, and because the pollutants, radiation, genetically modified organisms and the rest that it carelessly spills into the environment never remain contained in the places they originate from.

Western “freedom” eradicating all those who do not wish to be a part of it’s plan for the world.

By definition, that is not freedom – that is authoritarianism.

And, before you object, there is nothing inherent in the existence of the west that requires that peasant to exist to support it: they contribute nothing to the outside world except scenery for tourists.

Indeed, I’m certain that many in the West wouldn’t give two shits if it stopped existing as anything other than scenery for tourists. The less societies who live away from the “requirements” of the West, the better for the West – makes it all the much easier to come in and asset strip natural resources.

Don’t tell me you haven’t heard of tribal people being encouraged to leave and go to the city for employment, meanwhile Western loggers can swoop in and clear-cut the forests where they live because the number of people living there (and thus resistance and political support) decreases?

You stand in defence of that kind of twisted death machine. At least I can sleep at night, knowing that I’m trying to do something to stop it.

And consuming less, unless it means dropping back to the level of that peasant, does not address the problem: we also need nuclear, or an equivalent technology.

So consume less then – it’s really not hard. I’m really only talking about you regulating your consumption so that others the world and into the future may also expect and achieve the same realistic levels of temporary use of the Earth’s resources. Or could it just be that your entire way of life is completely unsustainable and you rather like it that way, but that you’re too spineless to admit it?

Could everybody live as you do – even given nuclear power? Come off it! You’re in love with your advantages over others – you just can’t admit it straight up.

As nuclear is guaranteed to be naturally more expensive, it should do what you claim to want.

No, because a single nuclear accident could quite easily render the entire British isles uninhabitable for centuries.

Yes, I know there are safer reactor designs (gravity drop, pebble bed, etc) but I would rather do without, even if it meant having less electricity. It is inherently authoritarian (again, something you don’t seem to have a problem with) to make other people collectively take a risk they are not comfortable with, merely to support an unsustainable way of life that you are unprepared to change.

I am not comfortable with the risks associated with nuclear power, and your reply boils down to “just shut up and subsidise my fucking power station”.

A random new technology might well actually be inherently cheaper, and so lead an increase in use, if not held back by politically tricky artificially-high tax levels.

Renewables should be cheap – because they can also be constructed and dismantled without creating a no-go zone which lasts for millennia. I’m not against big renewables projects, but I’m more in favour of small-to-medium sized microgeneration projects.

That’s why really I don’t see how your opposition can be based on anything except the reasons I outlined above.
Your claimed reasons of impracticality are a joke: France runs on nuclear, the laws of physics do not change when you cross the Channel.

French cars do not run on nuclear power. French fields are not fertilised with nuclear power. French rivers don’t run because of nuclear power – though some of them contain plenty of it’s dirty secrets, don’t they?

And if worldwide consumption of finite uranium reserves suddenly peaks – which is what will happen if a significant number of other countries build new nuclear – then bugger all in France is going to be running on nuclear power, because there won’t be any fuel to put in the reactors.

Why are you incapable of grasping this idea – that uranium is a finite resource, and with even the most modern reactor designs, will be used up in around 60 years at the current rate of consumption? If we build more reactors – let alone significantly more reactors – that length of time will be sooner.

Peak uranium is just peak oil all over again. Let’s stop being idiots, and fix the problems NOW, rather than have to face it again in a few decades.

I think you’re just a hopelessly optimistic / denialist technophile, who puts blind faith in some other reactor technology coming along to make use of other types of fuel, or that there are somehow massive untapped uranium reserves we’re going to be able to mine. Or that we’re going to be mining it from fucking asteroids!?!? (And yet you make it out like my ideas are far fetched!?)

You’ll support your current way of life to your last breath, because you are too scared of change, and because the idea that change is coming anyway, and it’s way outside your control, and might mean you’ll have less stuff, is too much for you to face up to.

Dave, you have clearly thought this through. In your opinion, what population could, say, the British Isles sustain under whatever it is you are proposing?
And where would the rest of us go?

Don, there are a number of factors involved which would make it work.

I’m not just talking about rearranging a few little bits of society and then carrying on – I’m talking about a radical change all the way through. The type of change that would probably take at least a couple of decades to come into full effect.

Maybe it’s completely unrealistic, but this is a global problem requiring a global solution – so maybe when faced as such in the hard light of day, more radical solutions might not seem quite so outlandish. (Alternatively, we could keep thinking inside cosy little boxes…?)

So first of all, key to making it work is to allow free movement of people – ie. no borders.

Perhaps we might as well stop there, in terms of me trying to answer your question directly.

All I’m saying is, there are ways it could work, but they require changes in mindset – particularly in areas such as the necessity of employment, and the idea of “foreigners” (nationalism of all sorts).

However, I don’t believe the current population of the Earth is unsustainable even with significantly reduced resources available.

In fact, the statistics on resource usage and pollution do actually support this, but they require us in the “developed” world to take a lesser share of the pie, and to allow those in the “developing” world a fair share too. That is the biggest problem to overcome – of us taking many times more than our fair share of everything.

I think even the British Isles could self-sufficiently support somewhere close to it’s current levels of population if necessary, though it would undoubtedly be crowded. But with a decreased emphasis on employment (because capitalism can no longer support itself), there would be less incentive for people to come here or stay here for economic reasons.

I’m not saying that people should leave, but let’s face it – take away our financial advantage and level the playing fields worldwide so that nobody is living in poverty, and that there’s no such thing as a “poor country”, and there aren’t really a whole lot of reasons anyone would want to come to Britain, because you’d be just as able to have a good life anywhere else.

So I think at this point, humanity would already be starting to even out it’s distribution on it’s surface of the Earth a bit better, and your question becomes anachronistic.

This is why I don’t believe in countries (though I do believe in cultures) – because basically we are all just inhabitants of the same planet, and should treat everybody as family and as welcome neighbours.

So indeed, a long-winded answer with plenty of “if” in it, but my answer to your question depends on an entirely different set of circumstances and a different way of thinking about problems. We may not be at either of those yet, but I think there may come a time when entirely different ways of looking at problems become the easiest option by far, if we wish to survive.

Why should we constrain ourselves to this box called Britain? I am a human, and the Earth is my home – not some imaginary “country” which came only from the mind of a human, and can just as easily stop existing as a barrier to my existence, should humans decide so.

I don’t expect to see this in my lifetime – though I hope I may live to see the start of it.

That was in 2002! C’mon, six years ago. It takes no account of the development of Nordpool, whereby by my arithmetic 80% of all Scandanavian production – Finland, Norway, Sweden and Holland comes from either hydro electric or nuclear scources. In my terms green scources.

I’ll stand corrected on this, but my understanding is that the major rivers of the sub-continent are all fed from glaciers, and that it is glacial melt that provides their base load. I.e. outwith the monsoon season. And remember the plan would be to build the power stations in Nepal, not down on the plains.

Global warming is likely to first make an impact on places like the flood plains of Bangladesh. This article may be of interest:

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2007/10/22/news0972.htm

Particularily this bit:

There is higher rate of rural to urban migration in Bangladesh, because of endemic poverty and various social factors. This will be aggravated by the climate impacts. Thousands of poor are becoming environmental and climate refugees in Bangladesh and living in city slums in inhuman condition without basic amenities. They are also putting enormous pressures on urban infrastructure, economy and service delivery systems. This process will be further aggravated in the warmer climate and associated sea level rise in Bangladesh.

We are quite likely to see a significant exodus of refugees from the areas effected which would make any planned movement trivial by comparison.

On your other points, get the Norwegians involved. They seem to know what they are doing.

First Norway is an extremely wealthy country with a small population. Second Norway does suffer from shortages in power when water levels are not stable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2544523.stm

Not to mention that the variability of water levels in South Asia is more extreme due to the monsoons.

“It may be more capital intensive, though I don’t know where you get the idea that it is expensive to maintain. Do you have some evidence for that? Neither do I understand why using renewable natural resources like rainfall is asking anyone to sacrifice anything whatsoever.”

I meant the combination of capital and maintenance costs of hydroelectric power were more expensive than coal power not maintenance costs alone. Some sacrifices you ask for are for example unreliable energy, relocation of large populations (think of three gorges in China). Additionally generation of hydroelectric power changes the downstream river environment. Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks. Since turbine gates are often opened intermittently, rapid or even daily fluctuations in river flow are observed.

Norway generates almost all it’s electricity from hydro. And I’ve never heard of them having an ‘unreliable’ electricity supply.

It may be more capital intensive, though I don’t know where you get the idea that it is expensive to maintain. Do you have some evidence for that? Neither do I understand why using renewable natural resources like rainfall is asking anyone to sacrifice anything whatsoever.

That is a nice thought Desi, however, substituting hydro power for coal is far more expensive, especially infastructure and maintenance wise. In addition hydro power is unreliable. I am afraid the last thing people should ask a developing country like India is to sacrifice the interests of its poor on the altar of “environmentally friendly development”.

I haven’t looked into the pros and cons of hydro-electricity, but if I’m correct, if Nepal’s hydroelectric potential (one of the largest in the world) were properly harnessed and run in Nepal,there would be enough power for all of South Asia (Nepal currently taps around 0.3% of its potential). The problem is funds, infrastructure and sources to build hydroelectric plants.

Here are two links on energy in South Asia:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nepal.html

http://www.ris.org.in/pbno8.pdf

Regional cooperation to meet needs of South Asia by focusing on hydro-power:

http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2079

They want to convert to more eco friendly energy for heating & lighting etc but the cost is astronomical – especially installing an underground system that burrows into the earths heat etc, yes the govt give a subsidy of about £2,500, but you have to fork out the rest (about £20-30k).

The options are mind boggling – Solar panels, being a mini wind farm & selling surplus back to the utility companies and gaining power via a stream near the house.

Alot of these options mean having to sacrifice continuity of supply or to have several mechanisms as a back up … ok I know its one of those sacrifices mentioned in this post … but the cost and having the time to get to grips with the options makes it bewildering & tough to go green as an individual or family.

That looks a good contender.

And where would the rest of us go?