I'll store the video from last week here for history along with the original comment I made.
Note this 'discussion' [the host, Stewart Brand, is reluctant to refer to it to a debate] took place in the very beginning of 2006 - over a full year before I even started this blog. Certainly A LOT has changed since then technologically, socially and politically. [Catch Schwartz's scepticism regarding whether the Bush administration would ever acknowledge climate change and yet here we are.]
The pro-nuclear argument is presented by Peter Schwartz - an environmental scientist with a fluid mechanics background. The opposing view is presented by Schwartz’s friend/foe Ralph Cavanagh, an attorney from the National Resources Defence Council. I don't know if I would have the courage to trade points with an attorney, but good on Schwartz for having a go.
I would like to point out a few interesting aspects of the discussion. First, Schwartz's perspective - as pointed out by Stewart Brand - is more global; second, Cavanagh accuses Schwartz of 'wishing' for advanced technologies that may or may not come to fruition and raises the 'spectres' of waste, proliferation, etc. without providing any tangible [i.e. quantifiable] detail of his own points [e.g. a purely 'renewable' solution]; and third Cavanagh claims nuclear is a historically competitive loser in the open market system - while California remains in the midst of a 30 year ban on nuclear development.
Please, watch and enjoy with the 20/20 hindsight of over 20 months' history.
The pro-nuclear argument is presented by Peter Schwartz - an environmental scientist with a fluid mechanics background. The opposing view is presented by Schwartz’s friend/foe Ralph Cavanagh, an attorney from the National Resources Defence Council. I don't know if I would have the courage to trade points with an attorney, but good on Schwartz for having a go.
I would like to point out a few interesting aspects of the discussion. First, Schwartz's perspective - as pointed out by Stewart Brand - is more global; second, Cavanagh accuses Schwartz of 'wishing' for advanced technologies that may or may not come to fruition and raises the 'spectres' of waste, proliferation, etc. without providing any tangible [i.e. quantifiable] detail of his own points [e.g. a purely 'renewable' solution]; and third Cavanagh claims nuclear is a historically competitive loser in the open market system - while California remains in the midst of a 30 year ban on nuclear development.
Please, watch and enjoy with the 20/20 hindsight of over 20 months' history.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment