Anti-nuclearism

Recently, the ANSATO has issued a press release stating that Australia needs to develop nuclear plants if it want to cut its greenhouse emissions. Being the filthy hippy I am, I'm opposed to nuclear plants. However, I do try to base what I am for and against on as non-ideological grounds as possible-think realpolitik. Hence,

1. Building the bloody things. Plants are extremely expensive-ranging from $6 to $10 billion to produce. Not only that, but they're only getting dearer. Think of how much energy could be supplied if $6 billion was spent in renewable energy (and it would be much cheaper in the long term; see no. 3)?

2. The water use. You know those chimneys gushing with what looks like smoke? That's actually steam. Nuclear plants require millions of litres of water every day to use, far more than other sources of power. That would be fine if we had millions of litres of water to spare, but we don't. Australia is the second driest continent on the earth (next to Antarctica) and only getting drier. And I haven't heard from the pro-nuclear side just where this water will be coming from.

3. It's finite. Uranium, as with oil and coal, is a finite source. That means that it will eventually run out. I don't know when-it could be 20 years, 50 years, even 100. But it will, and when it does, we will look pretty bloody stupid with all these worthless nuclear plants around. Renewable energies are called 'renewable' for a good reason; they don't run out. (OK, the sun will eventually burn out, but that'll be about 5 billions years in the future, a touch more than the uranium)

4. The waste. There's a good reason why no country wants to handle this stuff: it's the equivalent of injecting tar directly into your lungs. The waste takes forever to break down and if it leaks, it will wreck havoc with everything it comes into contact with. As far as I know, the only way to completely get rid of the waste is to launch it into the sun-and that creates a slew of new problems (the expense of launching so many space shuttles, the danger of a leak, finding a pilot who'd willingly sit in a cockpit 10 feet from enough isotopes to mutate them into the hulk...).

Long story short, there are sufficiant problems with nuclear waste-from beginning to end-to render the whole building plants unfeasible. Next up-arguments for more solar!

The irony! It burns!

Why is it that religious conservatives (Liberals, Republicans, Fielding...) who continue to say that "the science is out on climate change"-defying the consensus of 2000+ scientists-never apply their skeptical and inquisitive nature to their own religious beliefs? As Field Marshal Editor so brilliantly put:

If only the AGW model was proposed in a collection of 2000-year-old texts of dubious authorship. That way there would be enough evidence.

Thank God for Andrew Bolt

We all know that Greens are Nazis (reductio ad Hitlerum notwithstanding). So it comes as no surprise that Andrew 'Woodward' Bolt has uncovered the terrible truth; that the Greens are directly responsible for the bushfires.

Greens literally added fuel to the fires by planting “carbon offset’’ forests - which have now burned, adding the carbon dioxide emissions they were meant to remove:

Greenfleet will assess the impact of these fires on our forests over the coming weeks, with a view to replant if necessary or monitor recovery in areas where the impact was less severe.

But I don't think Andrew goes far enough. After all, as long as there's forests in Victoria, they could burn. And kill people. Thus, the only solution is log the state. If we wipe out the forests, the chances of a bushfire will be 0%. You don't want to people to die, do you?

What ever happened good ol' days of blaming Jews for everything?

[Note: blogger is being a shitter with the font, which is why it randomly changes. Not my fault]

People with a working conscience would refrain from blaming any movement or community for the current bushfires, unless they had a mountain's worth of hard evidence to back up the claim. Which makes it pretty clear that not everybody has a working conscience.

From Miranda 'I can has Bolta controversy?' Devine:

It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

Man, this is so easy-we can blame everything on the greenies! No water? Blame the greens who

support alternatives oppose dams! Power shortage? Blame the greens who oppose building more coal plants! Terrorist attack? The Greens opposed that anti-terrorism bill, which, coincidentally, is highly authoritarian and is easily abused! They're pro-jihad!

I should take a job at one of the Heralds.

Ignoring the fact that anything short of totally logging the entire state would be ineffective against the fires, I love the fact that Devine hates greenies so much that she absolves the arsonists (who I'm pretty sure have contributed more to the fires then Greens have) of all blame.
It's rather ironic that the SMH, which publishes Devine's rants, also published this:

The Catch the Fire Ministries has tried to blame the bushfires disaster on laws decriminalising abortion in Victoria.

The Pentecostal church's leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah, claimed he had a dream about raging fires on October 21 last year and that he woke with "a flash from the Spirit of God: that His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb"

So in response to Victoria slaughtering innocent children, God decided to...slaughter even more innocent children.

And in other news, Piers 'Poor-man's Andrew Bolt' Akerman* hasn't blamed the fires on teh feminazis, but in his usual "Subtlety's my middle name" style, takes on the environazis.

Greens leader Bob Brown has taken no responsibility for the huge lock-up of forest reserves. It is bewildering to listen to Brown and other extremist environmentalists call for more wilderness areas, areas left in as pristine a state as possible, when they also purport to support the claims of Aboriginal Australians that they managed the “wilderness” for perhaps 40,000 years through regular burning.

Yes, Brown is totally responsible Victorian policies-except for the fact that he's a Federal (not a Victorian) MP and therefore not responsible for any Victorian policies.

The “green wedge” is now a blackened, crisped monument to those green policies.

As compared to Forestry Tasmania, which has never destroyed forests through burning.

And what would an Akerman article be without shoehorning into his rant (no matter how irrelevent) his pet hate-the Islamonazis?

Treating arson as terrorism should not be a huge leap, given that a group of Islamic extremists last year singled Australia out as a target for “forest jihad” as a weapon of terror.

What I've noticed is that it's the Right who make these claims. Bob Brown stated that the firestorm was (at least partly) caused by global warming, but he didn't exactly say afterwards "It's HoWARd's fault for the fires! He didn't listen to us years ago!," and then blame climate change skeptics as killing 180+ people. In contrast, we've have Devine, Bolt (see most cross posts below) and Nalliah all using a national tragedy to And these guys aren't fringe lunatics; Devine, Bolt and Akerman all publish their work in mainstream newspapers, whilst Nalliah is President of CTF.

So my humblest question is: is it just me, or is the political Right a touch less civil then the political Left on these issues? And why? Compassion and conservatism aren't in any way mutually exclusive, so why do such prominant columnists (and one rogue 'Christian') who proclaim to represent Australian conservatism (I'll find some link sometime) are so utterly brutal and without compassion themselves? Just wonderin'.

And before I forget-donate.

Cross-posted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

*Might I be stepping over the line in calling anybody a 'Poor man's Andrew Bolt'? It's a pretty low blow.

Stuff we should read.

Alas, fellow culture soldiers, but I have been terribly busy at the moment. Rather then fight alongside my fellows in the front trenches, I have been spirited away to the home front, to nurse elder statesmen and women in their final years.*

Unable to properly contribute my ideas to the blogosphere, I will (for today at least) direct readers (if only Reuben and Luli) to miscellaneous articles of interest.

- Ongoing racism against young Sudanese-Australians. Take a bow, Mr. Andrews.
- A scientist calls for ethics guidelines to be developed in relation to the use of robots. Good idea.
- The National Geographic examines intelligence in everyday animals, whilst Iceland debates whether to use its rivers for power, or to keep them as they are. (My opinion: keep them natural. We have other resources.)
- TIME magazine looks at Nelson Mandela, American Libertarianism, Obama's rise, global warming, capitalism, Somalia, the case for climate change, the abortion war in America, European multiculturalism, and Fiji.

That oughta keep the soldiers occupied.

*Working at a nursing home.

It's official: Andrew Bolt has gone off the deep end.

Andrew Bolt has officially crossed that thin line that divides the controversial and the batsh*t insane:

Catholics believe in Armageddon and the fires of hell. So do global warming believers.

Uh..no. Just-gah, this statement is so full of wingnuttery, no wonder Bolta refused to give any links to his strawman environazis-they don't exist.

Catholics believe we must repent our sins to be saved. So do global warming believers.

No, you troll. Environmentalists think that we need to drastically cut our emissions on a global level to avert the worst of climate change. That has sweet f*ck all to do with 'sinning', which is a religious concept of personal immorality.

Catholics believe love of money is the root of evil. So do global warming believers, only they called money “industrialisation”.

This is so ridiculous it's almost self-parodying: Bolt has painted conservationists with a brush almost the size of Brendoc's forehead. I'm a "global warming believer" and I see bigotry and greed as the roots of evil-not industrialisation. Perhaps you'd like to explain why, if greenies are so anti-technology, the Greens are so supportive of more advanced renewable technology? I won't hold my breath.

UPDATE

Apologies to the readers below who are offended by the comparison. You are right: Catholicism is indeed more rational and benign than the green faith, and doesn’t demand forcible conversion.

OK, that is self-parodying. Why don't you name 10 people who have been "forcibly converted" to environmentalism? And benign? Like opposing both abortion and contraception despite that policy committing genocide against African women? Compared to campaigning for increasing international to developing nations (CLEARLY SUPPORTING INDUSTRIALISATION)?

F*ck off Andrew. Your pathetic attempts at smearing environmentalists are becoming more ludicrous everyday. BTW, the CEC called; your member's registration needs renewal.

UPDATE: W.O. Michelle B. Button cross-posts this, and raises some excellent points:

• Catholicism demands conversion unless you want to be judged for all eternity in Hell.

• Tell the kids who have been molested by priests that Catholicism is benign. Tell the people who have been killed in the name of the religion.

• Catholicism is based on a book which, if it weren't for the mass support in it's Truth, would be found squarely in the Fantasy section of the bookstore.

• There is no scientific basis for Catholicism

• Catholicism wants you to believe that there is a guy in the sky who created it all and controls many aspects of the lives of people on earth.

Yep, Catholicism is totally rational.

The good news: new cat discovered! Bad news: it lives in Indonesia

From the WWF:

Borneo's clouded leopard identified as new cat species

15 Mar 2007

Gland, Switzerland – Scientists have discovered that the clouded leopard found on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra is an entirely new species of cat. The secretive rainforest animal was originally thought to be the same species as the one found in mainland South-east Asia.
The news comes just a few weeks after a WWF report showed that scientists had identified at least 52 new species of animals and plants over the past year on Borneo.

“Who said a leopard can never change its spots?" said Stuart Chapman, WWF International Coordinator of the Heart of Borneo programme.

"For over a hundred years we have been looking at this animal and never realized it was unique. The fact that Borneo’s top predator is now considered a separate species further emphasizes the importance of conserving one of the most biologically diverse habitats on Earth.”

Researchers at the US National Cancer Institute say the differences between the Borneo and mainland clouded leopard were found to be comparable to the differences between other large cat species such as lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar and snow leopard. They believe the Borneo population likely diverged from the mainland population some 1.4 million years ago.

“Genetic research results clearly indicate that the clouded leopards of Borneo should be considered a separate species,” said Dr Stephen O'Brien, Head of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, US National Cancer Institute. “DNA tests highlighted around 40 differences between the two species.”

The results of the genetic study are supported by separate research on geographical variation in the clouded leopard, based mainly on fur patterns and colouration of skins held in museums and collections.

“The moment we started comparing the skins of the mainland clouded leopard with the leopard found on Borneo, it was clear we were comparing two different species,” said Dr Andrew Kitchener, Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland. “It’s incredible that no one has ever noticed these differences.”

The Borneo clouded leopard has small cloud markings, many distinct spots within the cloud markings, grey fur and a double dorsal stripe. It is darker than the mainland species.

Clouded leopards from the mainland have large clouds on their skin with fewer, often faint, spots within the cloud markings. They are lighter in colour, with a tendency toward tawny-coloured fur and a partial double dorsal stripe.

By taking into consideration the forest conditions in Borneo, a total number of 5,000 to 11,000 Bornean clouded leopards are estimated to live there. The total number in Sumatra could be in the range of 3,000 to 7,000 individuals. However, further studies are needed to obtain better population data.

The last great forest home of the Bornean clouded leopard is the Heart of Borneo, a 220,000km² wild, mountainous region — about five times the size of Switzerland — covered with equatorial rainforest in the centre of the island. Destruction of their habitat is the main threat they face.

Last month in Bali (Indonesia), the ministers of the three Bornean governments — Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia — signed an historic declaration to conserve and sustainably manage the Heart of Borneo. This has put the area on the global stage of conservation priorities.

END NOTES:

• Based on their general physical appearance, all clouded leopards were considered to belong to a single species. However, recent genetic analysis has shown that the ones found on Borneo are so different that they are best regarded as a separate species. DNA tests highlighted around 40 nucleotide differences between the two species. This is comparable to differences between the large Panthera species. Lions and leopards, for instance, have 56 nucleotide differences. The combined results of DNA analysis point to a 1–3 million years difference in separation, while the accepted distance of species is 1–2 million years.

• The clouded leopard was first scientifically described in 1821 by the British naturalist Edward Griffith. The scientific name of the clouded leopard from the mainland is Neofelis nebulosa, while the Bornean clouded leopard is now called Neofelis diardi.

• Clouded leopards occur in most forested habitats of Borneo, from coastal areas to the interior mountain ranges. Their preferred habitats, where most animals are found, are the dense lowland and hill rainforests of Borneo. They usually avoid open areas with few trees and are very sensitive to human disturbances.

• Bornean clouded leopards feed on monkeys, mouse deer, barking deer, young bearded pigs and sambar deer, which are stalked on the ground or jumped upon from tree branches. Occasionally birds and reptiles (such as monitor lizards) are eaten as well.

I'm giving it 25 years til extinction.