Stephen Emmott, author of '10 Billion': neither wind nor nuclear is the answer to our problems
[div style="float: left; margin-right: 12px;"]
"Why have scientists and politicians been slow and reluctant to confront population growth?
It might be useful to first distinguish between growth and behaviour. The problem is less the current number of us in itself (yet) but more the way the majority of the 7 billion of us live and consume. This is principally the cause of almost every global problem we face. Critically, every one of these problems is set to accelerate as we continue to grow. "Confronting", as you put it, the way we live and consume is not something politicians want to do. Doing so would be immensely unpopular. And politicians do like to be popular. Indeed, our entire political systems are set up for the opposite: to promote and encourage us to increase our consumption and irresponsible behaviour. As for scientists – my colleagues, I should add – the vast majority choose to do what I have chosen not to do; to keep their heads well below the parapet on this lot.
Do you think Thomas Malthus was wrong only in terms of timescale?
The Reverend Thomas Malthus (FRS, no less) was wrong about many things. Indeed the chap held a fairly broad range of opinions which fell into the "dubious to odious" categories. But on population, his basic argument – that when the population exceeds the means to sustain it, the result is going to be "misery" (in Malthus's words) – remains remarkably difficult to reject. It's interesting that he wrote this despite being witness to the benefits of the agricultural revolution, and the emergence of the industrial revolution, which to most were seen as "a new age" of human progress. So, was he wrong only in terms of timescale? Well, he doesn't really set out a timescale in his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population, so the answer has to be no.
<>
Should we forget about windfarms and put our energies into nuclear power?
We should put a lot more of our energies into reducing our consumption of energy, not least the energy needed to produce and transport and power all the stuff we consume that we don't need. But given that it's safe to assume that this isn't going to happen, then the answer to the specific question you ask becomes somewhat complex. Windfarms are definitely not the answer. They (and other "green technologies"
might turn out to be part of the answer, but I struggle with claims that this is likely. Nuclear power could solve our energy challenges for the next half-century or so, but where's the massive building programme needed for this to become a reality? Nuclear power is so unpopular that I don't see it happening. In fact, rather than doing all we can to reduce our reliance on carbon and hydrocarbons, we're increasing our efforts to find, extract and use them. We (in Britain) look to the US shale gas and oil "revolution" and want to do the same. Our government recently issued 197 new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea: the largest number since 1967. And our use of coal for electricity production increased by no less than 31% last year."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-windfarms-not-the-answer
Emmott reads excerpts from his upcoming book:
http://www.theatre-video.net/video/Ten-Billion-Dix-Milliards-extraits-66e-Festival-d-Avignon
= new reply since forum marked as read
