[Marxism] Re: Nuclear Power, again...

["Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nuclear Power, again...

I'm still very sceptical about nuclear energy.

I don't doubt the power stations are much safer than they used to be, but
it only takes one accident for there to be major and longterm effects. And
who is to say that safety standards will be maintained, if there's a
general panicky rush to nuclear power as the effects of global warming
become more obvious.

The fact that they produce less waste doesn't convince me either.  If you
have 200 plants producing x amount of waste, rather than 10 plants
producing 10x, you will still end up with *more* total waste ? which has to
be stored somewhere for a very, very long time.

But no doubt you know this, and if you work in the industry you know far
more than me, so I'm just saying these things to help get a debate started,
because I think a debate is a good idea, and I agree we should keep it
non-dogmatic.

I suggest that we need a debate on some other issues too. For example,
we've just had a "climate change summit" in Sydney, bringing together an
anti-Kyoto bloc including the US, Australia, China, India, and South Korea
? versus Europe. This reminds me a bit of the imperialist line up over
invading Iraq. I think we need to consider the geo-politics of it.

The man theme of the summit was that there will be no reduction in the use
of fossil fuel (because the US and Australian economies rely too heavily on
them) therefore we need technologies to make the fossil fuels "clean". The
initial favourite technology, at least down here, is geo-sequestration --
pumping greenhouse gases under ground, where they will be stored for a
very, very long time. Sounds familiar.

So we should critique all this stuff, and for that matter we should
probably have a hard critical look at renewable energy. (There are already
some good critiques of Kyoto)

But at the same time, barring a short-term global revolution, we should
recognise that a lot of these measures will be implemented. I used to think
that the bourgeoisie could not save the planet. Now I think it can do so --
in the sense that it can maintain human survival and conditions for
continuing accumulation of capital -- but the means will be ghastly.

They will include a lot of nuclear power stations, a lot of carbon trading
arrangements that at best commodify the environment and at worst are an
imperialist vehicle for dumping shit on the third world, and a lot of
greenhouse gases pumped under our feet. It won?t happen soon (the Sydney
summit was 99% window dressing). Most of it will happen very late, after
the energy wars and the death of millions, and the displacement of more
millions, and the anti-refugee hysteria when millions of Bangladeshis are
looking for somewhere to go. I can almost imagine a new stage of capitalism
-- but maybe it?s just me being my usual apocalyptic self. :-)

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism