| |
E-Rant Archive
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
| 30-05-06 |
Ash |
ENVIRONMENTALISM - WHAT A WASTE OF TIME |
|
ENVIRONMENTALISM - WHAT A WASTE OF TIME...
(Working title and topic suggestion courtesy of Tim Beck)
I was having a recent side-conversation with Tim (a veritable
ranter if ever there was one) and he suggested a topic that was
already high on my list, environmentalism. Tim's comment to me
was both funny and true - "People look on in horror when the
Japs harpoon a whale for food but say "Wow isn't nature
spectacular" when a bunch of sharks (what IS the collective term
for a group of sharks?) kill a whale / dolphin for food. Ditto
for a polar bears munching on harp seals for food tho we as
humans can't kill them. Does a lion care if it eats the last of
an endangered species? Of course not, so why should we? We are
all just animals striving to survive, it's just that we have a
more evolved brain."
This harked back to a line in one of Grant's earlier pieces on
globalisation (and you so rarely get to use the word "hark" that
I've been saving it up) - "We are the product of nature, we are
not un-natural, we emulate several other organised structures
seen throughout nature. We are as much a natural thing as
anything else."
Then (because a back story is important) in piece of
serendipity, I caught a Counterpoint program on the ABC which
involved a fascinating discussion on the myth of global warming.
It also shows my tragic radio tastes but hey..
One of the guests on Counterpoint was Ray Evans who is a member
of the Lavoisier Group (lavoisier.com.au), worried that the
science behind the Global Warming debate is not robust. Anyway,
the paper itself "Nine Lies about Global Warming" makes for some
interesting reading.. There is evidence that suggests the total
additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic
sources (Word For The Day - anthropogenic - the influence of
human beings on nature) since the industrial revolution is less
than 1% of the total. The recent "warming" is also under
question in that the sample time frame is way too small. There
was massive global warming after the last ice age but was that a
bad thing? If it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here anyway..
Was it part of the normal cycle? Who knows.. but if the
scientists can't agree then policy makers have a problem.
Anyway - as usual, I digress...
Rather than take on the whole debate I thought I'd put forward
two example topics that have both been in the press lately (and
you know that Grandpa Simpson advises to stay away from the
papers because they angry up the blood...).
Nuclear Power
The debate on whether Australia should consider nuclear power
has reared its head again recently. Regardless of the scientific
pros and cons I find it interesting that the main Green groups
are struggling with this one. For years they have campaigned to
reduce greenhouse gases (shut down the coal fired power stations
etc.) but now that the science seems to be indicating that
nuclear is a better option in regards to power without the
greenhouse effect they don't know where the hell to jump. I
heard a very eminent scientist recently say (I think it was on
Lateline) that given the choice between living next door to a
coal fired powerplant and a modern nuclear plant he wouldn't
hesitate in moving his family next door to nuclear. It's also
interesting that if you watch the newsclips whenever the power
debate is on they show the giant cooling towers of nuclear
plants belching white plumes into the sky but never mention that
this is just water vapour...
Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear
reactor on December 20, 1951 at Arco, Idaho. In 2005, there were
441 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world.
The way a Nuclear plant works is actually very simple (www.howstuffworks.com
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power). Energy is
produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235, is
concentrated such that the natural rate of radioactive decay is
accelerated in a controlled chain reaction to produce heat. Heat
boils the water and produces steam which drives a turbine.
Currently nuclear power provides 17% of the world's electricity.
The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear
power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France
produces the highest percent of its energy from nuclear
reactors—80% as of 2006.
So where does the resistance and hysteria come from? Words like
Chernobyl spring to mind... and rightly so. The main fears are
in two categories - accident and waste disposal and/or storage.
Accident - Chernobyl was caused by a combination of the faulty
RBMK reactor design and poorly trained operators. The RBMK
design, unlike nearly all designs used in the Western world,
featured a positive void coefficient, meaning that a malfunction
could result in ever-increasing generation of heat and radiation
until the reactor was breached. This is old technology and is no
longer used.
New modern "pebble bed" reactors use physics as a safety
mecahanism rather than mechanical (and human) intervention.
Named because the fuel is contained within spherical pebbles
made of pyrolytic graphite, as a pebble bed reactor gets hotter
an effect known as Doppler Broadening (don't you love the names
the science geeks come up with) ensures that the more rapid
motion of the atoms in the fuel decrease the probablity of
neutron capture and thus slows down the reaction. It also uses
inert gas to drive the turbine rather than water so complex
water cooling systems are not required and there is no risk of
steam explosion. A pebble-reactor can have all machinery fail
and it will simply "idle". This has in fact been tested by the
German AVR reactor (all controls rods were removed, the coolant
flow was halted and there was still no damage to the fuel). God
knows who pulled the short straw on that shift to test it out...
"Hey, work experience kid, wait for us to be a hundred miles
away and then push that button..". Anyway, technology
improves... Cambridge University has a nuclear reactor on campus
for goodness sake.
Waste - A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres of spent
fuel each year. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste
material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Contrary to
popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive
waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. As
for safety comparisons more than 3000 workers died in coal mines
in China alone in one year 2005 (and this figure is said to be
significantly underreported - Source BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4199648.stm).
In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise
less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remains
hazardous indefinitely. Even these issues are not insurmountable
and will become much more important once peak oil production is
reached.
The debate, in reality is more based on the principle of NIMBY
(Not In My Back Yard). No politician, regardless of the science,
wants to stand up in parliament and volunteer to have a nuclear
power plant in their electorate. As the debate on Global Warming
intensifies, however, there needs to be serious and rational
debate on the options. The historical "We'll dig it up and sell
it, but not use it" argument will be rightly seen as
increasingly hypocritical and economically stupid..
And secondly, because I'm on a roll...
Recycling
The use of energy and greenhouse gases to build, maintain and
run the trucks that come to pick up your recycling bins full of
carefully rinsed and crushed cans and cartons are more likely to
harm the environment more than the recycling can help it. Many
local governments in the US mandate this activity but they are
finding that curbside recycling requires more trucks be used to
collect the same amount of waste materials. Los Angeles has
estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is
twice as large as it otherwise would be (800 vs. 400 trucks).
This means more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and rubber
manufacturing, more petroleum extracted and refined for fuel and
of course all that extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin.
If you're interested you can go here for more "Forced recycling
is a waste" - http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02897.cfm (an op-ed
from the Wall Street Journal).
So what are we doing? Do we just buy into the "every little bit
helps" argument or are community recycling programs popular
because we have a deep down guilt that everything we do is
contributing to the impact on the planet and we can sleep better
at night if we at least do something (regardless of its
effectiveness). Everyone knows that cars contribute to the
greenhouse effect but I don't see many (any?) voluntarily
altering their life and making do with walking, riding or public
transport on a permananet basis. I wonder whether David Suzuki
(as impressive a public speaker as he is) can justify the
massive burning of fossil fuel that he is responsible for when
flying around the planet giving lecture tours..
Just remember folks, don't belive everything you read (including
this..)
Cheers
Ashman
PS - In answer to Tim's original question, one of the collective
nouns for a group of sharks is a "shiver of sharks", very
appropriate. Interestingly, the collective for apes is a
"shrewdness of apes". I love it.
And the initial final word goes to Tim - "So I say, clear fell
the old growth forrests, strip mine the national parks and feel
free to eat deep fries fairy penguins because in 1000 years, who
is going to give a damn.." - such heresy from such a fine
citizen.
|
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
| 22-05-06 |
Ash |
FEMINISM AND
SPORT |
|
FEMINISM AND SPORT
(Working title - Why men should get paid more than women...)
Controversial title I know. Hell, it's not even really my point
but far be it for me to shy away from resorting to cheap
sensationalism to draw an audience.. Anyway, I digress... I
noticed (another) article in the West on the weekend that
pointed out the huge disparity of wages between some of the top
male sport stars versus the women. In this case the title was
similarly sensational "Netball in uproar over pay for boys" - it
was in regards to Western Force player Matt Giteau signing a new
contract worth $1.5 million dollars (pinkie to corner of mouth
like Dr Evil when you say that…) per year versus the top state
female netballer on $15,000 per annum. Yes this is a huge
disparity and yes it is difficult to argue that Giteau’s
sporting prowess is 100 times Jessica Shynn’s BUT the purveyors
of this argument forget one simple fact. Sport (and by proxy its
remuneration) has nothing to do with men and women or even
relative performance and effort, sport is a business. As a
business the rewards are dictated by the market (generally
advertising revenue in regards to television rights, corporate
sponsors etc.) and the advertising revenue is linked directly to
audience size. In a business model funded almost completely by
such revenue the biggest rewards go to those who can most assist
the team perform and thus attract sponsors. So yes, Chris Judd
is worth every cent of his multi-million dollar contract - if he
wasn’t worth it the market wouldn’t support it. Incidentally, as
part apology for the working title (and for all the gals
frothing at the mouth) the most money earned by a female golfer
in one year was Annika Sorestam in 2002, US$2,863,904 which is a
truckload more than Matt Giteau and Chris Judd combined… You
can’t argue men versus women and the press should know better,
it’s sport versus sport and the audience size decides the purse
(or manbag as the case may be..)
Cheers
Ashman
|
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
| 16-05-06 |
Ash |
THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT |
|
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Driving home from work the other day I saw one of those stickers
“Don’t take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them
here.” You’ve probably seen them. This got me thinking about
that great sketch in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life – Live Organ
Transplants.
“Hello, can we have your liver please?”
“My what?”
“Your liver, it’s a large glandular organ in your abdomen..”
“Yes, I know what it is, but I’m using it..”
“C’mon Sir, don’t muck us about…”
Etc.
Anyway, funny, but it got me thinking (and that’s all I need for
another rant). What is the social contract in regards to
reciprocal behaviour between individuals? Actually it didn’t
form in mind in those exact words but I’ve had some time to
think it over…
In this instance, let’s apply reciprocity to the relatively
emotional issue of Organ Donation.
According to http://www.organdonation.org.au/11655+0+facts-and-figures.htm
at the start of 2005, there were 1 663 people on the organ
transplant waiting list in Australia. In 2004 there were 218
organ donors from whom 783 transplants were performed. 218
donors is equivalent to 11 donors per million population (dpmp),
which is one of the lowest in the developed world. As a
comparison Spain has a rate of 34 dpmp, the USA had a rate of
21.5 dpmp and the UK had 12.9 dpmp in 2002.
The average age of organ donors in Australia last year was 42.7
years. From 1989 until 2004, 40 per cent of organ and tissue
donors were female and 60 per cent male. Cerebrovascular
accident (stroke) caused 48 per cent of all organ donor deaths
and road accidents caused 26 per cent.
The first organ transplant (a kidney) occurred on December 23,
1954 but still the biggest challenge in transplantation is the
chronic shortage of donors. In the US 27,000 human organs were
transplanted in 2004 but 6,200 patients died waiting.
The Australian Government Medicare Website states that around
2000 people are on a waiting list for an organ at any given time
in Australia and many die waiting.
Why the low rate of donation? One of the key reasons stated is
because families don’t know if their relative wished to donate
their organs or not. In addition, Australia has an “opt-in”
system where the government assumes you are not a donor unless
you officially notify otherwise and/or make your intentions
clear to family and next of kin. It is interesting to note that
even if you have nominated to be a donor your family can still
override the decision as they have to sign the consent form.
This is why it is important that they be made aware. There are
other countries with an opt-out system (e.g. Spain) where you
are automatically assumed to be a donor unless you choose not to
be. I think this system has significant merit and would be worth
debate in Australia.
But let’s take it a little further (hell, why not?) and consider
this in a social contract context. Firstly, my disclaimer is
that I am an organ donor and my family is well aware of my
intentions. That aside, I am not pushing for it to be
compulsory. But consider this – if you, or your husband, wife,
child etc. was diagnosed with a terminal illness that could only
be cured by a donated organ would you want them to receive it? I
can’t speak for anyone but I would assume the answer would be an
emphatic yes (if your answer is no, I'd love to know why... ).
On this basis – do you have any moral right not to be a donor?
In my opinion – no way. You cannot expect such a life giving
gift without reciprocating your side of the social contract.
Ashman
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
| 9-05-06 |
Ash |
PROHIBITION IS GOOD
FOR BUSINESS |
|
PROHIBITION IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
(Working title - How to build a criminal underclass in one easy
lesson)
Here’s a question that gets the occasional media once-over but
never seems to gain much traction. Why are some dangerous drugs
perfectly legal and others can give you a criminal record or
send you to prison? I’m not so much interested in the legal
differences of opinion but from a purely philosophical point of
view the hysterical ravings of the “tough on drugs” lobby would
be much more relevant if they also targeted the two biggest
killer drugs on the planet – you guessed it, tobacco and alcohol
(and I won't even touch on legal prescription drugs). Tobacco
companies legally kill people and pay shareholders for the
privilege of doing so. Over time they will kill them in their
millions. So, what’s the difference between tobacco and heroin?
The “addictiveness” is surely not a valid justification, go ask
any person who has ever tried and failed repeatedly to give up
cigarettes. I’m sure you’ve seen those graphic pictures of
people with larynxes removed and holes in their throats still
puffing on the evil weed because they are physically and
psychologically unable to stop. Even if we get away from the
irrational approach of banning some drugs and legalising others
(i.e. wouldn’t it make more sense to ban everything or legalise
everything?) there is the not-so-insignificant matter of the
flow-on effects of making items that large numbers of our
community use every day illegal. Even in last weekend's West
Australian, an article quoted the National Drug Council as
saying a third of Australians have used Cannabis and 295,200 use
it daily. 5.5 million people over the age of 14 had tried it. In
essence it makes large numbers of otherwise ordinary citizens
criminals. We've also had real life experiments that showed the
logic to be pure folly. How did Al Capone go from small time
Chicago hood to big time crime lord? – By bootlegging alcohol.
Why did he make such a vast fortune from alcohol? - because the
manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol was banned by The
Prohibition Act of 1920 in which the Eighteenth Amendment to the
US Constitution was ratified. Simple cause and effect - as soon
as something that people want is made illegal criminals
instantly fill the vacuum and make large profits. Ultimately the
only real effect of Prohibition was that it made a lot of
criminals rich, did absolutely nothing to stop people drinking
alcohol and was such an abject failure that it was repealed in
1933. What is fascinating is that this whole debacle is
strikingly similar to what happens now with illicit drugs. Will
we one day look back on the current “prohibitions” the same way?
The more serious longer term effect of Prohibition is that it
most likely worsened a lot of average citizens' lives by forcing
them to have contact with the criminal underworld.
So, picture this, tomorrow the Government announces that Cocaine
(or whatever) is legal and will be sold under licence, taxed
appropriately and funds set aside to provide assistance to those
who are addicted (exactly the same as applies to alcohol and
nicotine right now). In one instant an entire criminal
underclass becomes largely redundant. The trick is not to make
it expensive but to make it cheap and clean. It would
immediately wipe out the lucrative market for import/export
gangs and most likely save a lot of young people from spending
their lives (or worse) in overseas gaols. But wait, I hear you
cry – if it’s made legal then everyone will rush out and become
junkies! Very unlikely. When Prohibition ended there was little
evidence of non-drinkers rushing out to become alcoholics. It
may even take away some of the “rebel” effect which always
occurs when you ban something. Now, before you start your
rant-engines let me be clear, I do not condone drug use and I’m
not advocating that they are “good” (just like I would never
advise my kids to smoke cigarettes) BUT I am simply questioning
the effects of arbitrarily criminalising some substances and not
others when rational evidence would suggest this is mindless
public policy. When a government announces that all tobacco
sales will be forthwith illegal then they may have credibility
on their populist “tough on drugs” stance.
But I digress…
A.
|
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
| 26-04-06 |
Ash |
GLOBALIZATION AND THE ART
OF HYPOCRISY |
Let's go short and sweet to start.
GLOBALIZATION AND THE ART OF HYPOCRISY
I have often heard people moan and complain (with barely
concealed misty-eyed nostalgia for the “good old days”) that the
big corporations are killing the corner store, wiping out the
family run businesses, swallowing up the world. "Globalisation
is evil!" they froth and bubble. This is especially common from
the ubiquitous baby-boomer generation who seem to want 2004
choices with 1964 prices. But let’s be honest – Do these
whingers shop at the corner store or do they prefer the price
and convenience of Coles, BIG W and Woolworths et al? We all
seem to hold a special affection for the “little guy” and an
automatic mistrust of the large faceless conglomerate but at the
same time everyone is obsessed with speed, choice and the
absolute lowest possible price. Do you drive past the
multi-national Shell petrol station to pay more at an
independent to support the “little guy”? I don’t think so... The
reason driveway service at the petrol station is gone is not
because things were “better in the old days” – it’s because
nobody would be willing to pay $5 a litre for fuel to cover the
cost of wages. Bunnings may have all but wiped out the local
hardware store but it was DIY-addicted consumers voting with
their credit cards that won the battle. If you want the
combination of low cost and wide range then the big chain-store
or large corporation will win every time. My message to all the
wistful past-dwellers? If you’re not putting your money where
your opinion is then shut the hell up. As for the younger crowd
of Generation Alphabet, the next time you see an anti-Globalisation
protest count the people wearing brand name running shoes made
in third world countries. They got to the rally burning fossil
fuel in a foreign made car, stopped for a burger and fries at
Maccas to discuss the death of realpolitik (Otto Von Bismarck
knew a thing or two about reality versus idealism) and those Che
Guevara T-Shirts were made in China and bought at K-Mart. Nature
abhors the hypocrite.
But I digress...
Ashman |
|
|
