GVConsulting

GVConsulting is proud to announce a new partnership which enables us to provide comprehensive GIS data and mapping services. This new suite of services includes:

• Conservation Planning and Assessment
• Biogeographical Mapping
• Ecological Surveys
• Field Mapping
• Geological Surveys
• GIS Project Management
• Geospatial Modeling and Analysis

Contact us via email (gregory@gregoryvickrey.com) or by phone (202.487.1201) to take advantage of this expansion.

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, and extraordinarily expensive. Routine operation of nuclear reactors releases toxic radiation, generates lethal radioactive waste, requires polluting uranium mining, and poses proliferation risks. The disaster at the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan serves as a new reminder that nuclear accidents happen more frequently than governments and the nuclear industry admit, and that such accidents can be triggered by a myriad of man-made and natural factors.

• We believe the U.S. must quickly develop a clear plan to phase-out existing nuclear reactors at the earliest possible date and replace their power with clean, sustainable energy sources.

This phase-out implies a speedy end to nuclear fuel production, and to uranium mining, importation and processing.

The United States already has begun a transition to safe, clean, and affordable energy sources, including wind, solar and geothermal power, increased energy efficiency, smart grids and distributed generation technologies, and research into new technologies such as microalgae fuel. This transition must be accelerated.

• We believe it is not only possible, but essential for the life of our country and planet, to attain a nuclear-free carbon-free energy future by 2025.

We believe this future can be attained at approximately the same percentage of GDP than is currently spent on energy if energy priorities are properly re-ordered. However, this future cannot be attained if tens of billions of dollars are spent on failed nuclear technology.

The ongoing disaster at Fukushima reminds us that the unexpected and the “impossible” CAN happen at any time. Specific steps that must be taken now to meet these goals include:

1. Immediately and permanently close the 23 General Electric Mark 1 reactors.

23 U.S. reactors use the same General Electric Mark I design whose containments failed so dramatically at Fukushima. This design has been criticized by top AEC and NRC safety officials since 1971 as being particularly vulnerable under accident conditions. After the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the NRC closed the other similar Babcock and Wilcox-designed reactors until a safety review and appropriate improvements could be implemented. In this case, there are fatal flaws in the GE Mark 1 design that are fundamental and cannot be fixed. These reactors contribute less than 4% of total US electricity production yet present a clear and proven danger to people across the United States. There are ample reserve supplies to cover the loss of power these reactors would represent.

2. Immediately close all reactors on or near seismic faults.

Reactors on seismic faults, primarily in California and along the New Madrid Fault in the Midwest to the Southeast (though there are a few others) should be closed immediately pending an independent review of their capabilities to withstand major possible earthquakes, including failure of auxiliary facilities such as emergency diesel generators. This review must not only include “likely” earthquakes, but possible earthquakes. A clear lesson of Fukushima is that we must be prepared for abnormal but conceivable natural events. In the case of nuclear power, already fragile in its safety margins, reactors must be able to withstand such events. Nuclear reactors that cannot withstand conceivable—not just likely—natural disasters must close permanently.

3. Immediately remove all subsidies, particularly loan guarantees from the current federal budget; to be followed by repeal of the Price Anderson Act. A full-cost accounting study should be done of the civilian nuclear power fuel chain and the federal subsidies provided.

Loan “guarantees” (actually taxpayer loans from the Federal Financing Bank) and other taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactor construction must be ended immediately, and any existing funds available rescinded.

Proposals for new reactors in the U.S. should be financed solely by the utilities and other entities involved, not taxpayers or ratepayers. Construction-Work-in-Progress rules in effect in a small number of states should be rescinded as undemocratic and an inappropriate use of ratepayer money. Public opinion polls show nuclear subsidies are a more publicly popular program to cut than any other federal program. Other relevant subsidies that should be eliminated include taxpayer funding intended to speed the implementation of new nuclear power, uranium and plutonium fuel production, and for reprocessing of radioactive waste.

The Price-Anderson Act limits nuclear industry liability in the event of an accident that could cause tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Americans cannot purchase insurance to protect from radiation accidents. This is an unsupportable subsidy to the nuclear industry, creates a certainty among nuclear utilities that they will be protected regardless of their actions and design flaws of their reactors and shifts the burden of accident consequences to taxpayers.

4. Irradiated nuclear fuel pools should contain no more than the most recent five years of waste generated. Older waste should be put into hardened on-site storage that meets the “Principles of Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactor Sites” endorsed by groups in 50 states. Reprocessing of radioactive waste—which creates plutonium-based MOX fuel exacerbating the situation at Fukushima—must be permanently banned.

Since the potential radiological releases from a densely packed fuel pool may exceed those from a nuclear reactor, it is time to enact the steps outlined in the “Principles of Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactor Sites.” This document resulted from years of discussion, and is an agreed-upon position on high-level radioactive waste storage. Hardened on-site storage recognizes that a permanent waste facility is decades away, that radioactive waste will remain at reactor sites for the foreseeable future, and concrete steps must be taken to secure existing radioactive waste in dry storage that is spread out and protected with barriers.

Paducah, Kentucky, Waste Stockpile

5. No license extension of existing nuclear facilities.

New license extensions of US reactors should stop. License renewals already granted should be rescinded. No reactor should operate more than 40 years.

6. No new licenses/permits/approvals should be granted for new uranium mines, fuel cycle facilities, reactors, reactor design certifications. There should be an immediate halt to licensing and construction of any new nuclear project, including the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, “Generation IV” reactors, “small, modular reactors” and Thorium reactors.

We have better ways to boil water…and boiling water is a very inefficient way to make electric power if it results in the generation of waste that has global consequences, such as that from uranium and from coal.

7. Expand emergency evacuation zones to 50 miles for existing reactor sites

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone for U.S. citizens in Japan following the Fukushima disaster. In the United States, utilities should be prepared to evacuate at this distance. Currently, emergency planning zones are only 10 miles around reactor sites.

8. Safety review of station blackouts

Station blackout has long been an accident scenario of critical concern to nuclear experts. A new review of the ability of U.S. reactors to withstand a station blackout scenario of significant duration must be conducted and lessons learned implemented.

9. Update US radiation standards to reflect Post-Chernobyl understanding of radiological impacts in addition to current standards based solely on A-bomb survivors

Retire the radiation exposure risk model now used by the International Commission of Radiological Protection–which is the basis of and dominates all present radiation risk legislation–because it inadequately deals with exposures to internal radioisotopes and exposures to the most vulnerable: women, children, the fetus, and the elderly. Adopt the risk model proposed by the European Committee on Radiation Risk  which more responsibly accounts for the risks and uncertainties of radiation exposure.

10. End all import of foreign radioactive waste, stop all incineration of radioactive waste, ensure that all radioactive materials remain regulated.

The United States has been asked to import, treat and dispose of foreign-origin radioactive waste. This must end. Incineration of radioactive waste spreads radiation into our air. This too must end. Materials contaminated with radiation must be treated as radioactive and must not be released into normal waste streams for disposal or recycling into commerce.

Sign on to this statement here.

CounterCurrents | OpEdNews | Political Context | RSN

Dear Sarah,

You and I first crossed paths on a fairly pleasant day in Ketchikan, Alaska, during the lonely part of your effort to unseat the deplorable Governor Frank Murkowski in 2006. Like you, I had a booth at the Ketchikan Blueberry Festival – and neither of us were very busy. You were the “outsider” tracking down the hometown boy, Murkowski, and I was the “radical” environmentalist undermining his work. The conservative town on Revillagigedo Island didn’t care much for either you or me at the time.

Sarah Palin in Ketchikan, Alaska

I approached you on your stroll of solitude around the festival, and you saw my approach out of the corner of your eye. If the signs and the t-shirts and the postcards at my booth didn’t label me a “greenie” right away, I know my introduction did: Gregory Vickrey of the Tongass Conservation Society and Alaska Conservation Voters, how do you do?

I knew why you were there, but you told me anyway. You knew I hated the Bridge to Nowhere scheduled for my town, but I told you anyway. And because you noticed I was wearing an Illinois Fighting Illini shirt both of us were more than capable of changing to a lighter topic of discussion. This would not be the last time we’d talk college hoops.

The world now knows you steamrolled through a primary with the aforementioned Murkowski and John Binkley, and overwhelmed the obsolete former governor Tony Knowles (Eric Croft would have been a better challenger, and we both know it) as well as independent nemesis Andrew Halcro in the general election. You had a campaign for change, and our beautiful state was prime for implementing it after the failures of King Frank. You had the wherewithal of keen foresight, and left the established network of good-ol’-boy politics behind. You had the will to challenge, and harnessed the brand of independence to achieve.

What happened?

Looking back, I see the Sarah Palin I knew in Juneau – the Sarah with a presence of mind to recall our debates about basketball; the Sarah who worked with the aforementioned Croft to remove corrupt individuals from the intertwined network between state government and the oil and coal industries; the Sarah who challenged the federal government and its continued effort to pillage Alaska’s natural resources.

The Sarah Palin who was approachable.

The Sarah Palin who helped our small environmental group kill the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Sarah Palin who couldn’t say for certain that humankind was the culprit behind climate change, but knew we had to mitigate and adapt to reality anyway.

We didn’t agree on a lot of things, Sarah. But when we did, you or your staff knew, and the “outsider” Republican and “radical” environmentalist made a go of it, sometimes quietly and other times not so. Bridge to Nowhere. Village erosion mitigation. Fire Island Wind Project. A calculated refusal to bow down to establishment Republicans over that oh-so-sensitive provision in the state constitution (you remember: they didn’t like you and wanted to expose a hypocrisy in you that didn’t exist at the time). Alaska Marine Highway System. University Lands. Oil tax reform.

What happened?

In 2008, I supported the ticket of Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. I would do so again, because I know and admire both men and believe the views they hold and the work they do are desperately needed on this planet, and in this country. And I know what I am about to share with you in public will likely cause recoil amongst some of my colleagues and allies (no doubt this entire letter does!). But it should be clear in my writing: I have an agenda. And the following email snippet I sent to a rather conservative friend in 2008, after your nomination to Vice Presidential candidacy, serves that agenda.

“She is (was?) a really solid governor for Alaska, and a good person. I was quite lucky to get to know her, and had a good working relationship with her and her administration (as her cancellation of the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan attests). She is extremely popular among the people of the state, and not so much amongst the legislature, which – to me – is great.

“I did not vote for her in 2006. I did not vote for the Democrat Tony Knowles either (and preferred her over him). I actually voted for Andrew Halcro, the Republican turned independent that is leading the charge of the Troopergate scandal. (I respect Andy deeply, and am glad he brought up the question of abuse of power, but I believe he has gone too far, and has done so for the sake of political ambition – it is obvious to me that he has a personal problem with Sarah.)

“My biggest fear of her prior to her victory was that she would be far too evangelical once in power. That concern was overblown, frankly. She is smart and savvy, and during her first two years she did a wonderful job of picking her political battles (the Bridge, budget vetoes, gasline, oil taxes, transportation), allowed state agencies to actually do their work, and enforced a sound fiscal policy while challenging corruption at every level of state government. She stayed away from social issues even though she had opportunities to push her evangelical side, and that was brilliant of her (Republican Lyda Green, our Senate President, can’t stand Sarah and tried to force an abortion debate – for the purposes of creating derision in the state and to loosen the support of Dems and independents for Sarah on non-social issues – over 6 different potential law changes – Sarah wouldn’t bite).

“It goes without saying that I did not agree with her on all things (like aerial shooting of wolves and ANWR), but I wouldn’t agree on all things with anyone, and she proved herself to be prudent once elected to the point where I am actually happy with her work, overall.

“I thoroughly enjoyed talking with her on the occasions we got together. We’d always talk basketball (she is a big fan) before getting down to business, and she was always kind, funny, and as open as she could be under the circumstances (radical vs. governor haha).

“I am surprised she accepted the role of VP, given the circumstances with her newest child, but I think the pick was brilliant. My immediate reaction was as follows:

“1. As long as she doesn’t totally bomb and embarrass herself, I think McCain improved his election chances with the pick of Sarah (barring any extenuating circumstances, inclusive of not letting her be herself). I knew social conservatives and the Christian right would love her (even though she never pushed that agenda in Alaska) and she could certainly garner more than a few Hillary voters.

“2. I fear for Alaska. Should they win, there will be a vacuum in the state, and that vacuum is most likely to be filled by the good ole boys she cleaned out and the oil companies she reigned in. The old guard Republicans – the corrupt ones – are quite pleased with the thought of her being gone, as are the oil companies she whipped into shape. If you want, I can detail more on the whys of this. They are specific.

“To conclude, the Sarah Palin I know I support. I like her, and I would even work for her on some issues. I hope the national stage and DC cronyism don’t change her too much. If they do, I will revisit this statement.”

(Gasp! The horror of it all! How could a “radical” leftie actually support anything Sarah Palin has ever done, uttered, or represented?!?)

It should be obvious to anyone: I have revisited this statement many times. I’m haunted by it, in innumerable ways. And not because I was wrong about you, then, Sarah. I wasn’t. Rather, I am haunted because I am right about you, today.

Some combination of fortune, fame, limelight, soundbite, ego, and inner circle of advisers has corrupted you and your approach to the point where your effective reality is no better – and in some cases, worse – than the shanty Republican you replaced (Murkowski) and the inept Democrat (Knowles) you demolished back home in Alaska more than four years ago. Misguided counsel, the parade of Johnny’s-come-lately, and cronyism have reduced you to a caricature of your character, and undermined your abilities (yes, I said abilities) to change the world for the better, and I’d like to understand why, and what you are going to do about it.

I don’t need you to see everything the way I see it, Sarah. I don’t expect you to publicly echo my alarm over methane feedback loops from melting permafrost in Alaska. I won’t beg you to forcefully acknowledge the climate catastrophe we have on our hands today as the world rapidly approaches states of peril in food security, clean water sourcing, and economic collapse. I can’t fathom a day when you will recognize the imperative of a zero carbon world.

But I know your real character – the one that still exists behind the cartoons and the cut-outs. I have seen your recognition of the state of the world and your ambition to affect it positively for the sake of the next seven generations instead of the next seven figures. I have witnessed your hands dirty with the earth of a dying community in Southeast Alaska. I have watched you manipulate with knowledge a massive budget so the imperative mitigation and adaptation could begin.

Don’t you think it is time the world sees?

Let me know.

Este artículo continúa las series que han sido presentadas por Cory Morningstar y Gregory Vickrey y forma parte de su anticipado y controversial libro y proyecto multimedia que serán lanzados en 2011.

Es prácticamente seguro suponer que, en las arenas de la política moderna, un acercamiento a la emergencia producida por el cambio climático a través de las directivas convencionales no va a funcionar. En verdad, en todo movimiento, desde los planes de financiamiento de los costos de salud hasta las guerras americanas y ocupaciones en el extranjero, lo convencional ha fracasado. Y mientras nosotros poseemos muchas habilidades para inventar excusas y proveer análisis para algunos aspectos de ese fracaso, no somos muy buenos para determinar otros mecanismos alternativos para cambiar. El movimiento por el cambio climático no es ninguna excepción a esta realidad.

Los corruptos e ineficaces grandes partidos políticos en EE.UU. y en general reflejan el fracaso de las masas para controlar nuestra propia voluntad política, expandir las soluciones que podríamos llegar a desear y reconstruir la estructura de la sociedad desde sus cimientos. El control corporativo de esos partidos, y más directamente las elecciones y cargos políticos, limitan nuestra efectividad colectiva en el campo de crear políticas en Washington DC y otras capitales. De nuevo, la historia reciente del planeta y el escenario nacional muestran que el movimiento por el cambio climático está también dominado por instituciones codiciosas de control corporativo.

El Capitalismo es un concepto sacrosanto para la mayoría, aunque el sistema moderno de capitalismo no es puro bajo ningún punto de vista (tanto positivo como negativo). Aún observando el acercamiento del capitalismo moderno a la economía global y visto a través de la lente de las demandas del clima nos volvemos críticos del mismísimo sistema que, en un grado u otro, ha provisto nuestras vidas de confort en el primer mundo. Por ejemplo, cualquier análisis de una compañía moderna como Nike demuestra que tanto LeBron James como tú y yo podemos usar las mejores zapatillas cuando comienza la temporada de básquet, pero esas zapatillas son manufacturadas por medio de la directiva del capitalismo moderno del trabajo esclavo- por las manos de hombres, mujeres y niños explotados en el sudeste asiático en talleres donde trabajan en condiciones infrahumanas y embarcadas hacia todo el mundo vía barcos portacontenedores y camiones ineficientes totalmente dependientes de combustibles fósiles.

Nuestro calzado y sentido de la moda, como casi todo lo demás en la vida, están íntimamente conectados a la economía del carbono.

Dado que aquellos involucrados en el movimiento por el cambio del clima están listos para molestar a conglomerados de corporaciones multinacionales, a los políticos que ellas controlan y a LeBron James por medio de cualquier acercamiento significativo, la mayoría ha optado el camino de emails estandarizados, campañas higiénicas y acciones simbólicas.

NRCD fue un autor líder de proyectos carentes de valor que se trataron de “vender” en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos en 2010 que hubieran continuado subsidiando combustibles fósiles y energía nuclear, enriqueciendo a las corporaciones y sacrificando a las generaciones futuras.

350.org gastó tiempo, dinero y activistas organizando partidos simbólicos alrededor del mundo con la esperanza de que algún líder, en algún lugar hiciera algo en algún momento, vendiendo un montón de camisetas (adivinen la mayoría hechas dónde) e impulsando una gran cantidad de petróleo (los fundadores de 350 están chorreando en él) al tope de la lista de los lavadores verdes.

La Nature Conservancy continua su estrecha asociación “gana – gana” con BP.

Win-Win?

A los tres, y a muchos más, les gustaría mantenernos convencidos que si nosotros solamente volvemos “verde” nuestro modo de vida consumista, lo podremos mantener con poco o ningún sacrificio.

Ellos están equivocados.

Y eso significa que nosotros estamos equivocados.

En realidad, sabemos que en el mejor de los casos tenemos hasta el año 2020 para implementar totalmente los cambios necesarios para derrotar a la economía de los combustibles fósiles y sus derivados. No hay nada cómodo sobre esta realidad, pero es la única oportunidad que tenemos de detener la corriente de la emergencia climática global. Ninguna parte de los sistemas económicos y políticos tiene la flexibilidad para proveer el liderazgo adecuado, planes de acción y fuerza de voluntad.

Para citar a su Demócrata americano favorito, Barack Obama: “Tomó cien años la reforma del sistema de salud”. La psicología de atrincherarse solo evita que movimientos significativos ocurran dentro de un período de diez años; más aún, el aspecto de los combustibles fósiles de la economía es el motor que impulsa la cosa, controlando o teniendo una mano poderosa en casi todas las facetas de la vida.

Conociendo esto ¿Qué hace que cada uno de nosotros crea que las autoridades establecidas se despertarán lo suficientemente temprano, durante el período de diez años, para darse cuenta de la necesidad de remover la economía del carbono y de las corporaciones que la manejan, implementando tal remoción y manteniendo a la sociedad civil como es actualmente, todo al mismo tiempo?

Si una persona es llevada al poder para desmantelar contra la voluntad de la elite controladora de los combustibles fósiles ¿Qué clase de inquietud civil tendrá que crear la economía de los combustibles fósiles para detener los mecanismos del cambio y sostenerlos por sí mismos?

Una reflexión crítica debería permitirnos rápidamente responder a estas preguntas.

Nosotros no podemos más tolerar tener miedo de leer la verdad. Nosotros no podemos tolerar más tener miedo de reflexionar acerca de nuestro fracaso. Nosotros no podemos más permitirnos no contestar. Nosotros no podemos permitirnos evitar desafiar al sistema por lo que es.

El descontento manufacturero es un método importante para el movimiento por el clima para implementar un razonamiento sensato en pos de remover del capitalismo moderno y sus efectos predatorios. Es probablemente el componente más importante, porque aprendiendo la verdad acerca del control corporativo sobre nuestras vidas inherentemente conlleva hacia el descontento entre todos excepto los más ricos de la sociedad. Para esparcir la verdad, el movimiento debe crear los mecanismos para desenmascarar el lavado verde, el lavado de deudas, estado en que se encuentra actualmente la política comercial. El cálculo para la creación no es difícil. La mayoría de la gente soporta la carga al punto de la desesperanza por deudas, enfermedad y desastre.

El descontento yace intranquilo debajo de la superficie.

Simplemente tenemos que liberarlo.

Es estremecedora la idea de de actuar. Pocas cosas asustan más que darse cuenta que el sistema que nos permite crear nuestro confort caerá, controlemos su transición o no. Saber que tenemos probablemente 10 años para implementar el cambio es aterrador. Aún asustados como estamos, sin embargo, una alternativa está viniendo y la pregunta es si esa forma de vida alternativa será colectivamente diseñada. El clima está verdaderamente forzando esa decisión sobre nosotros. El sistema previene cualquier forma de acción diseñada para preservar la vida. La responsabilidad es nuestra.

Un cambio sistémico como objetivo puede afectar profundamente nuestra habilidad de salvar lo que podamos bajo la crisis climática y alterar otras condiciones despóticas modernas desde las guerras por materias primas a la pobreza global y la salud individual. La implementación de tal cambio, más allá de los impactos sobre nuestro desacuerdo colectivo, requerirá nuevas estrategias y tácticas, empleadas bajo el estandarte de humanidad.

El descontento arrastrará a los componentes de cambio de principio a fin, perpetuando el fracaso o el éxito manufacturero.

Una línea de base significativa donde el descontento brama y aparece listo para tomar forma yace dentro de los conceptos del sistema financiero moderno y existen razones para pensar que, aliados a través del espectro político, pueden unirse con un propósito común, abrumando la situación actual. Aquellos comprometidos en el activismo climático- y la mayoría de los tipos de activismos orientados a lo colectivo, tienden a perder estos potenciales aliados desde el comienzo, típicamente porque el asunto ha recibido alias falsos o debido a la percepción en general del movimiento en sí mismo.

Tómate ahora cinco minutos en silencio para considerar el movimiento pacífico de los últimos años. Tu juicio al cabo de esos momentos será sensato y profundo.

Ahora mira alrededor del globo, observa Francia, Portugal, Reino Unido, Grecia… ¿Ves lo que se puede ver?

Cuando la oportunidad para hacer lo que es correcto se presenta a sí misma, así como los medios, necesitamos alzarnos y aprovecharla, porque cuando viene solamente hay dos opciones: prevalecer o fracasar.