Monbiot's conversion, now 'loves' glowing example of Fukushima

[chris morton]

On the nuclear thing, the reasons against it have been perfectly clear  
for a long time and the one that won't ever go away is the the fact  
that it leaves a radioactive mess for future generations.

I was however interested in GMs article at the bit where he produces  
some data for energy usage at 1800, something I have speculated about  
but never found any data for and I would prefer it for 1780 before the  
'industrial' (prefer 'unsustainable') revolution got under way, never  
mind the prodigious waste of energy going into the Napoleonic war and  
transferring transport of heavy goods from canals to roads.Then there  
are all those vast neo-greek houses and their army of near slaves and  
all the other toys of the kleptocracy we never needed and never will.

Even allowing for quite a degree of inaccuracy however, it does  
underline something most of our current 'thinkers' (sapiens????) don't  
want to hear - in order to revert to sustainability, we would have to  
abandon a very large proportion of our current activity; most  
technology other than 'intermediate' as in Practical Action, was ITDG.  
I am not sure that it bothers me, being dampish, coldish and slightly  
underfed is not a worry if you have grown up with it. ( I did until  
about age 6 { + being shot at} and grossly underfed). But say more  
like Tinkers bubble than suburbia. Perhaps we could encourage  
immigrants from poor countries to teach us how to manage on nothing?

And whatever George or his sources say, horses are far more energy  
efficient than diesel tractors....electric tractors?huh. Then of  
course coppice woodland regenerates on a cycle of 7 years, whereas I  
think fossil fuels are though to need a few million.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20110323/bbb88423/attachment.html>