The first thought that came into my mind when I started watching the film ”Story of stuff” was that it were just another tearful film that makes "the stupid Americans” to see that their perfect world is falling apart (no offence). Annie Leonard keeps talking and I keep listening and she really gets my attention. Then I think a little longer and realise that some of us, living in our unconsciousness, might also needs a wake up call. I mean our use of nuclear energy. I know this subject is very sensitive for many people and especially for some of the people that I study with (we avoid that conversation) but I think Annie has a good point in her film. Today almost 40% of our electric power is generated by nuclear energy. Clean and quiet, that’s what many of us feel about that. That’s just a little part of a dirty truth that makes many people keep their eyes shut.
The nuclear fuel is created in poor countries for example Namibia, the Czech Republic and Ukraine. The winning creates a nuclear waste which ends up in the surrounding nature, which leads to water and nature pollution. The inhabitants is exploit as cheep labour and they suffer and get disease. Just like Annie declares. Also, there's always two sides of the coin.
As you so rightly say, the consequences of consumerism extend beyond goods and gadgets. Energy production is also a big (and dirty) part of the equation. And what is environmentally benign in one part of its life cycle may be very hazardous in ohter parts. Nuclear energy (fission) doesn't produce any greenhouse gases, but the mining, reprocessing and waste storage have far-reaching consequences, this is a weel known fact. Equally hazardous consequences can be found in the mining and reprocessing of coal, rare metals for batteries and solar cells, drilling for oil.
SvaraRaderaLesser known consequences are effects on birds from wind mills, how fish are affected by hydroelectric plants blocking the way to old habitats and animals in general by human constructions.
The question, and a difficult one too, is "What incroachments are justifiable? What is a justifiable price to pay and for what?" As things are now we tend to pass the bill forward to the next generation or to the ones already paying dearly...
As you say, there are also two sides of the coin...for example in my Country (Italy) nuclear phas been the main source of energy from 1963 until 1990. The four Italian nuclear plants were shut down on grounds of age, or following the 1987 referendum( after the accident of Černobyl' in 1986). The debate about the reintroduction of nucleear energy that had opened between 2005 and 2008, ended with the referendums of 2011, which were repealed regulations for the coveted nuclear in electricity production. Italy appeared in 1966 as the third largest in the world after the United States of America and England.
SvaraRaderaMy country was self-sustaining from an energy standpoint, but the Italians were running serious health risks and environmental impacts. Today, Italy is not making more nuclear power for electric energy production but is forced to export, this creates a major economic problem. Should increase the use of renewable energy.
In Italy, in fact, the production of electricity is largely from the use of non renewable energy sources (fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, mostly imported from abroad) and to a lesser extent from renewable sources (such as geothermal energy, hydropower and wind energy) and the remaining electricity demand is met by purchasing electricity from abroad.
My question is: Is there really a way to balance the industrial production and environmental protection? I am curious to know!
I like that you mention nuclear, as you said its a sensitive subject. Many people ignore or don´t believe that this "great" energy source also might have a negative side, like the fact that the nature and water around the uranium mines are polluted.
SvaraRadera