Ignoring the Dangers of Global Warming and Nuclear Power

by Bob Lagow

November 2008

I have never been able to understand the ambivalence that so many people, including myself, have for the issues of global warming and nuclear power and the dangers both present to the very survival of mankind. Are these issues too complicated or too abstract? If they were a gun pointed at us or a knife held to our throat, would we be more concerned about the dangers they present?

When I originally made a presentation to members of the Mummy Range Institute about the dangers of radiation, one of my colleagues said he was unconvinced until I made a statement about biological amplification, the process whereby radioactivity becomes more concentrated as it passes through the food chain. Once I triggered his fear of the immediacy and the specific horrors of the potential effects to children drinking milk from cows that have grazed on contaminated grass, he was engaged and convinced of the relevancy of my concerns. Note: The effects of biological amplification were recognized by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.

As I look back over the passing months since our discussion and assess the lack of action on the part of both of us to become more engaged in this issue, I question myself and ask why, on such an important matter facing all of humanity, have I not become more involved. Amidst my guilt and self-recriminations has come a theory that explains my inability to tackle this problem head-on.

In the Fall 2008 issue of Greater Good Magazine, Lisa Bennett writes Are Human Beings Hard-Wired to Ignore the Threat of Catastrophic Climate Change?, a fascinating article that explores the question: Why don’t more of us actively respond to the most serious threat to the planet in human history? Ms. Bennett reports that social scientists have identified the following as one of the most significant factors in answer to this question: “The way we’re psychologically wired and socially conditioned to respond to crises makes us ill-suited to react to the abstract and seemingly remote threat posed by global warming.”

A very significant obstacle limiting people’s response to the threat of global warming, and even their willingness to believe in it according to Ms. Bennett’s article, is that it clashes with their worldview. It seems that researchers have discovered that one’s worldview matters in choosing between increased regulations of pollution emissions or revitalization of nuclear power as possible solutions to global warming. Those with a hierarchical worldview were more likely to reject global warming as a problem if they were presented with a solution calling for more regulation than when presented with a solution calling for increased usage of nuclear power. Those with a more liberal and egalitarian worldview were much more inclined to favor increased regulations.

Thus, we are faced with the prospect of a large portion of mankind believing that the use of nuclear energy with its inherent dangers to the planet and all life forms is an effective means of dealing with global warming and its inherent dangers to the planet and all life forms. This is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with bullets in every chamber, risking one’s life on the gun jamming.

During the just completed presidential campaign, John McCain loudly proclaimed his support of nuclear power, how safe it is, and how if the French can do it, so can we! President-elect Obama was mostly mute on the subject stating that “safe and secure” nuclear power should be considered. His transition team web site briefly displayed an energy policy highlight list that did not mention nuclear power. However, this hopeful list has since been removed from the web site leading to speculation as to Obama’s intentions for the future. It is extremely important at this time in our history, as Barack Obama is known to say, that we become knowledgeable about global warming and nuclear power and the dangers both offer to mankind.

Ms. Bennett reports that social scientists recommend that communication about global warming needs to reach people’s emotions and trigger fear. However, she quotes Elke Weber, Columbia University psychologist, as follows in cautioning the use of fear to incite action: “If people are being scared without seeing a way out, it makes them dysfunctional and freeze. They will switch channels and watch Britney Spears.”

At the risk of dramatically increasing the ratings of better forgotten television shows, I intend to provide some insight into potential dangers of global warming and nuclear power and to incite some fear in the coming months. It is particularly important that we examine these issues at a time when even some leaders of the environmental movement are heralding nuclear power as a necessary instrument to fight global warming. It is imperative that the Obama administration makes good decisions about global warming and nuclear power. We can help…...yes we can!

When I started writing this post, I intended to limit my comments to nuclear energy. During the process of writing and editing, Ms. Bennett’s article came to my attention so I incorporated it in my comments. During the process of editing the updated article, a new UN report was issued about global warming. This report indicates that we are on track to increase average global temperature by six degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, three times the target limit set by governments at last year’s Bali summit. This news left me no alternative but to include global warming in this discussion of life threatening dangers.

So, from time to time I will include posts about global warming. This isn’t really a stretch since global warming and nuclear power have become inextricably linked by the political process in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Oh yeah, what is the impact of increasing average temperature by six degrees? Maybe the best way to look at this is to work our way up to six degrees. The following is courtesy of Mark Lynas, author of High Tide: The Truth About Our Climate Crisis.

+2.4 Degrees: Coral reefs almost extinct. Worldwide, a third of all species face extinction.

+3.4 Degrees: Rain forest turns to desert. Arctic ice-cap disappears in summer months. Polar bears, walruses and ringed seals go extinct. Tens of millions displaced as the Kalahari desert expands across southern Africa.

+4.4 Degrees: Siberian permafrost melts releasing vast quantities of methane and carbon dioxide. Melting ice-caps and sea level rises displace more than 100 million people. Deserts grow in southern Spain, Italy and Greece causing large-scale migration. Agriculture collapses in Australia. More than half of wild species are wiped out.

+5.4 Degrees: Sea levels rise by 15+ feet. Sustaining these temperatures will cause sea levels to rise by over 200 feet. Tens of millions of refuges force their way into Scandanavia and the British Isles. World food supplies run out.

+6.4 Degrees: Most of life is exterminated.

2100 doesn’t evoke urgency in some. If you fall in this category, consider that children in elementary school today have a high probability of living to see the turn of the next century.

Is this sufficiently fearful? Are you energized to action or merely frozen in a catatonic state of dysfunction? I don’t have the scientific chops to speak to the accuracy of the above. I am a big believer in Pascal’s Wager though. That’s good enough for me.

I hope that you will engage me with comments and questions as we proceed and perhaps some of you will even be moved to offer some thoughts of your own and to take appropriate actions. I encourage you to read the complete article by Lisa Bennett for a better understanding why we are so prone to inaction. You can find the cite for the article below.

Next time I will discuss the French Myth.

Bob Lagow
Mummy Range Institute