
The Karachi Nuclear PowerComplex is on an earthquake-prone seafront less than 20 miles from downtown Karachi. (Max Becherer/Polaris Images for The Washington Post)
On the edge of Karachi, on an earthquake-prone seafront vulnerable to tsunamis and not far from where al-Qaeda militants nearly hijacked a Pakistan navy vessel last fall, China is constructing two large nuclear reactors for energy-starved Pakistan.
The new reactors, utilizing a cutting-edge design not yet in use anywhere in the world, will each provide 1,100 megawatts to Pakistan’s national energy grid. They are being built next to a much smaller 1970s-era reactor on a popular beach where fishermen still build wooden boats by hand.
But the new ACP-1000 reactors will also stand less than 20 miles from downtown Karachi, a dense and rapidly growing metropolis of about 20 million residents.
Now, in a rare public challenge to the Islamabad government’s nuclear ambitions, some Pakistanis are pushing back. Of all places to locate a reactor, they argue, who could possibly make a case for this one?
“You are talking about a city one-third the population of the United Kingdom,” said Abdul Sattar Pirzada, a Karachi lawyer who is seeking to get the project halted. “If there would be an accident, this would cripple Karachi, and if you cripple Karachi, you cripple Pakistan.”
In recommendations pertaining to nuclear plant construction in the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says a new reactor should be sited away from very densely populated areas, preferably with fewer than 500 people per square mile within a 20-mile radius. That zone around Karachi’s power plant holds about 6,450 people per square mile, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, wrote in Newsweek Pakistan last year.
Some U.S. diplomatic officials have also expressed concern about the initiative, in particular about China’s role in providing nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Caught off-guard by the opposition, political leaders have rushed to defend one of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s top priorities — addressing the country’s acute energy shortfall. Pakistan, one of the few developing nations still pursuing civilian nuclear energy options since the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, has three operative nuclear power plants, including the Canadian-built reactor in Karachi, but it has turned to China for help in expanding its capacity. Efforts are underway to double the size of the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant in northern Punjab province, as well as to build the new Karachi reactors.
“The risks are there. You cannot discount them, but you prepare for them,” said Khawaja Asif, Pakistan’s water, power and defense minister. “We are a nuclear power, so don’t underestimate us.”
China developed the ACP-1000 reactor, which costs about $5 billion each to build, after studying and refining the design of a reactor that France built in China in the 1980s. The China National Nuclear Corp. is now supplying the ACP-1000 reactor to Pakistan, despite an international ban on the transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan because of the country’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
“We are going to be the guinea pigs,” said Arif Belgaumi, a Karachi architect who wants the international community to pay closer attention to the government’s plans.

A tuk tuk transports students home from school between apartment buildings in the Khadda Market area, one of the oldest and most densely populated neighborhoods of Karachi. (Max Becherer/Polaris Images For The Washington Post)
China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group — whose members agree not to transfer to treaty non-signers any technology that could be used to develop a nuclear weapon — in 2004. But it claims that it had already promised to help Pakistan, allowing it to continue developing the reactors.
Beijing is helping Pakistan build reactors at the same time that the Obama administration is trying to implement a 2008 deal that would smooth the way for U.S. companies to invest in new nuclear power plants in India. Pakistan’s chief rival has also balked at signing the nonproliferation treaty. Both President Obama and former president George W. Bush have sought an exception for India.
“China’s expanding civilian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan raises concerns and we urge China to be transparent regarding this cooperation,” the U.S. Embassy said in a statement Thursday.
Until now, Pakistani leaders have faced little public discontent over the country’s nuclear advances. After all, Pakistan celebrates a national holiday each May marking the anniversary of its first atomic weapons test in 1998. But the country’s progressive movement is evolving, sparking novel protests over environmental and public safety issues. And the prospect of 20-story reactors rising next to a public beach used for swimming, camel rides and picnics is a vivid illustration of what’s at stake.
Though international monitors generally give Pakistan satisfactory reviews for safeguarding nuclear materials, industrial accidents causing hundreds of fatalities remain common here. There are concerns that Pakistani technicians won’t be able to operate or maintain the Chinese nuclear technology.
Karamat Ali, chairman of the Pakistan Institute of Labor Education and Research, noted that the world has already experienced three major nuclear accidents — at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986, in addition to the Fukushima disaster.
“Those are three highly advanced countries,” Ali said. “This is Pakistan. We don’t live on technology and science. In fact, we are quite allergic to that.”
Of particular concern is the threat of terrorism, especially considering Karachi’s long history of head-scratching security lapses.
Terrorists overran a Pakistani naval base in Karachi in 2011, killing five people and setting several aircraft on fire. A similar attack occurred in June, but this time Pakistan Taliban militants stormed a section of Karachi International Airport, killing about two dozen people. And in September, al-Qaeda militants, perhaps with help from renegade sailors, attempted to hijack a heavily armed Pakistan navy frigate docked in Karachi’s port. It took hours for security forces to repel the assault.
If a major attack or accident were to occur at a nuclear power plant, activists say there would be unimaginable chaos.
Karachi, whose population has doubled in just the past two decades, includes vast, packed slums, as well as districts under the thumb of criminal gangs and Islamic militants. And with more than 2.7 million registered cars, buses, rickshaws and motorcycles, it can take hours to cross the city.
“You couldn’t even dream of evacuating Karachi,” said Hoodbhoy, the physicist. “The minute an alarm was sounded, everything would be choked up. There would be murder and mayhem because people would be trying to flee. Others would be trying to take over their homes and cars.”
But Azfar Minhaj, general manager of Karachi’s reactor project, said Pakistan sought the ACP-1000 reactor because it makes a radiation leak far less likely. Each reactor will have a double containment structure capable of withstanding the impact of a commercial airliner, he said, adding that there is also an elaborate filtration system and that the reactor will be able to cool itself for 72 hours without power.
“If a new car comes with an air bag, would you start thinking, ‘This is a new feature, it’s never been tested in Pakistan, never built in Pakistan. Should we use it or not?’ ” Minhaj asked.
Because of the enhanced safety features, Minhaj said, authorities are planning for an impact zone no greater than three miles in the event of a worst-case accident. Most of the affected residents would be asked to shelter in place, not evacuate, he said.Hoodbhoy points out that even today, the no-go zones around the Chernobyl and Fukushima plants are 18 and 12 miles, respectively.
Minhaj said concerns about the effect of a tsunami are also overblown because the new reactors are being built on a rock ledge about 39 feet above sea level. Pakistan’s meteorological office recently concluded that Karachi could face a tsunami of up to 23 feet in the event of a 9.0-magnitude earthquake in the region.
Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he suspects that the new Chinese design is indeed less prone to accidents. But he noted that most poorer countries have shied from developing a nuclear energy footprint since Fukushima.
“If there was a lesson we learned from the Fukushima accident, it’s that, if you are going to get into the nuclear business, and if you don’t have world-class technology, good logistics, enough personnel, a lot of money and experience managing crisis situations, then you are not going to be able to manage a severe accident,” Hibbs said.
Zia Mian, a Pakistani physicist at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University who is also fighting the project, notes that the existing Canadian reactor was designed in the 1960s to generate just 100 megawatts of electricity. The new reactors will produce 22 times that amount and use a combined 40 to 60 tons of enriched-uranium fuel each, he said. And each year, one-third of that spent fuel will also be removed from the core and stored in large containment pools at the plant, Mian said.
“You put all of that together, and the hazards are unimaginably larger,” he said.
After Sharif showed up in Karachi in December 2013 to break ground on the new reactors, Pirzada and other activists began organizing against it on Facebook. Last summer, they filed a lawsuit against the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority alleging that construction began without a proper environmental impact study.
In December, a court halted vertical construction — but allowed excavation work to continue — until a new environmental assessment is completed, about a month from now. If major construction is then allowed to resume, the reactors will have an expected life span of at least 60 years.
“Of course, we need electricity, but we don’t need electricity to commit suicide,” Ali said.
Musadaq Malik, a Sharif adviser on energy issues, counters that a country that trusts its military to possess nuclear weapons can also trust its government to maintain a Chinese nuclear power plant.
“We may look irresponsible, but we are not that irresponsible,” Malik said. “We have engineers, we have scientists, we have our security apparatus. . . . Like other nations, we have done all of this before, reasonably well.”


Rodster on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 7:06 am
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
/s
peakyeast on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 10:18 am
Why place the power plants so far away from Karachi?? Place it much closer..
First of all its completely safe with the new generation of designs.
Second you will have less transmission losses
Third WHEN things go wrong even though they cant they go so wrong that people will be preoccupied with more interesting things than prosecuting the responsible.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:51 am
Well, here’s your chance, folks.
Lay out the renewable plan that would replace these two reactors. How many of each type of technology, where it would be placed, how much it would cost?
penury on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 12:14 pm
I was going to post: Cue the nuclear is safe and cheap, especially the reactors made in the USA, but I see they are already here.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:04 pm
Karachi should be fine for many decades, if the people stockpile light bulbs today. Once the light bulbs are all used up, then comes the real fun. Decommissioning a nuclear power plant with animals and hand tools.
Davy on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:04 pm
PeakY, I believe the water issue is a problem in and around Karachi. I would be worried having a NUK plant near a city that is a collapse in process. Cities like Karachi globally have no future. Why would you want to put something so dangerous so close to chaos?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:07 pm
Yeah, we’re here penury. But come on. I’m holding out the olive branch.
Seriously, I’d like to see those opposing nuclear to come up with a proposal to the people of Karachi:
This is how you could provide the electricity those two reactors would produce using safe, renewable technology.
The nuclear plant already has lots of details, costs, etc. So the new proposal should provide at least that level of detail.
How many solar panels or concentrating solar plants. Where they will be placed. Ditto for wind turbines. Geothermal (if relevant). Hydro (same). Looks like there may be a chance for tidal here, to be sure.
How the renewable infrastructure gets connected to the grid. How much it would all cost.
It’d be a perfect opportunity. The people of Karachi appear to want more juice (not less), and some sound a bit discouraged with nuclear.
How would renewables step up and provide the answer in this pinch?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:17 pm
Templar,
“Renewables” is a misleading word. Alternates is a much better word to describe non fossil fuel based electric power generation. All alternates require fossil fuels in construction and maintenance.
When the oil stops flowing, what do you propose using electricity for? Modern industrial manufacturing requires fossil fuels at every level, and modern economic activity also requires fossil fuels.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:22 pm
GregT,
I’m fine with alternates or alternatives. I’m good with a terminology switch, if that helps. If there are alternatives I’ve missed please add them to the mix, certainly.
I’ve stated in past comments nuclear fuel has the energy density to actually create hydrocarbons. You can take CO2, CH4, H20, and meld them into hydrocarbon chains. It takes a lot of energy to do that, but uranium has that energy.
And if fact, that would be what I would recommend. We would need to pull C02 and CH4 out of the air if we want to address climate change and ocean acidification.
But back to helping Karachi avoid the deployment of these reactors. How would it be done?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:33 pm
Templar,
To scale up nuclear to the level needed to make any difference would be a massive undertaking. Even if it were possible, which realistically it is not, what would the continuation of some semblance of BAU accomplish? Climate change and ocean acidification are only two of a plethora of environmental problems caused by modern industrialism and overpopulation.
I would argue that a massive reduction in human populations is required, along with returning to an agrarian lifestyle living off of, and taking care of the natural biosphere. We lived as a species on this planet for tens of thousands of years without industrialism and electric power generation. It has only really been the last 100 years of human technological “advancement” that is leading us down the path to a global mass extinction event.
Perhaps now would be a good time to stop, and let nature begin to repair herself, as opposed to creating even greater problems for ourselves in the future?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:38 pm
GregT,
Okay. Then is this the time and place to initiate the process. Rather than providing more energy to the people of Karachi, how would you phrase the proposal?
Look, folks. You’re a representation of all that is wrong with humankind. You neither need nor deserve additional energy. You’re a plague on the local environment, and a hazard to the existence of life on earth. It’s time. You need to consciously power down and thin your ranks to the point where you can exist in a rural, agrarian environment.
Get busy.
Is that what we should propose?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:02 pm
Templar,
The limiting factor to human population growth isn’t electricity. The limits are environmental. You are advocating building more of the same stuff that is causing environmental damage to begin with.
Populations are going to crash, we are already in overshoot. The more environmental damage that we do, the larger the crash will be. When fossil fuels are no longer available, we will not be able to feed our populations. In the meantime, with every passing year, we are further eroding the same natural systems required to feed ourselves.
I am not advocating anything. There is no solution. We are not in control of nature. Nature is going to take care of the human overpopulation problem. Like it or not.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:06 pm
GregT,
I would suggest you are advocating something, by advocating nothing. You have made a choice.
You are suggesting that nature take it’s course, or rather that nature will take it’s course.
It is the moral dilemma of the age old problem.
There is a small child, playing too close to a deep well. The child begins to teeter.
You are close enough, but you would have to run, and you yourself might fall in with the child.
Do you make the attempt, or stand by and let nature take its course?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:21 pm
Templar,
The choice that I have made is to vastly reduce my environmental footprint, to live as sustainably as possible. There is nothing that I can do to stop others from continuing to accelerate a global mass extinction event.
I am advocating for people to return to a simpler lifestyle, living off of, and taking care of the Earth. We do not need all of this stuff to live healthy, happy, and productive lives. We want the stuff. There is a big difference.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:23 pm
GregT,
And that is what you would advocate to the people of Karachi?
A simpler lifestyle, a reduced carbon footprint, one where they live off of and take care of the environment?
What sort of carbon footprint do you suppose the people of Karachi have?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:32 pm
Also Templar,
I took paramedic training back in my younger days. The first question always asked when approaching an accident scene; Is it safe to proceed? There is no point in putting more lives at risk, than the ones who’s lives are at risk already.
The same situation the we face here. The more we try to salvage the situation that we have already created, the more lives will be lost.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:35 pm
The people of Karachi have far bigger problems looming on the horizon than electric power generation. Nuclear power will not solve those problems. It will only allow populations to go further into overshoot, creating even larger problems down the road.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:40 pm
Fair enough, GregT.
However, I’m still struggling with the math. The human population is continuing to grow. If we advocate nature run it’s course, and that first responders do not risk themselves, what numbers are we talking about?
It seems to me advocating for additional energy might, just might, lead to a situation like Italy, Japan, and the US (if you exempt immigration). A higher standard of living that has lead to a leveling and even decline of the birth rate. Extended over time, there would wind up being fewer people than there are today.
However, it looks like a society needs to get past the first major hurdle, that standard of living.
Even if all or most societies do that, no guarantee we’ll get to a point where we are living within the ecological constraints of the planet. But it is at least a possibility.
How many perish in that scenario?
Then contrast that with allowing overshoot to proceed according to current pace, do little or nothing to mitigate the effects, and let nature run it’s course.
How many perish in that scenario?
If every human life is equal to every other human life, how do you read this calculus?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:46 pm
Templar,
We face a dilemma. Dilemmas do not have solutions, they only have uncomfortable choices.
Nature IS going to run her course. There is nothing that we can do to stop that. The deeper that we continue to dig this hole, the less people will be able to climb out of it.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 2:49 pm
GregT,
So you would say fewer will perish if we do nothing than would perish if we did something. Would that be a fair assessment?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:00 pm
Nature does not care about us Temp. We either nurture the natural systems that have given us all life, or we continue to destroy them. The further we destroy those natural systems, the less people that they can support.
We are trying to create a man made world, while ignoring the natural world. Our species needs a healthy natural world for our very survival. Our man made world is killing that natural world. We either stop, or we will cause our own extinction.
It may very well be too late already, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.
penury on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:23 pm
TM I do not argue for alternative methods of generating electricity. Nor do I think that nuclear is a wise choice. It may sound harsh an inhumane and probably is but the human race has reached the limits of the petri dish. There are no more resources to support a growing population. Do I advocate genocide? No Do I advocate population control? Yes if it is feasible I would. However, it appears that we live in a world with differing societies and outlooks on birth control, so what do I recommend. Do as Hippocrates advised{ First do no harm. Stop building facilities which can cause the destruction of the world. Stop the useless providing of resources to populations whose numbers render them unsustainable. Let Mother take care of the current population and I know the die off of billions of people will be a tragedy but is there another solution? No
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:25 pm
Okay Greg, but I’m trying to get at what you want to try. You’ve explained what you’ve done on an individual level. I’m trying to find out if that is what you advocate the other 7 billion people on the planet do too.
Or if not, what they ought to do.
To say we need to back to nature is fine, but there should be a discrete set of steps to get there, if you are advocating doing something. Which I think you are. By the last post, anyway.
So what should folks do? All 7 billion of em?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:26 pm
Well, at least you’re willing to say it, penury. I’ll give you that much.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:31 pm
Although, penury, I am finding your perspective er, well, interesting.
You are opposed to the expansion of nuclear power because it would, well, kill billions of people, theoretically.
But what really needs to happen is, well, er, billions of people need to die.
An interesting perspective, to be sure.
Apneaman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:58 pm
Look to your selves. There will be no help from governments on any level. They will always come up with something to block change, no matter how retarded sounding. It’s the same mind set that thought up the idea of calling corporations people.
.
In Florida, officials ban term climate change
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html
Davy on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 5:53 pm
Temp & others, I am torn between respecting our Mother who is Nature and the likely death of billions when BAU folds. Should we kill the evil BAU which is also a mother in some sense. I feel Bau is more the evil step mom.
These are questions above my rank and position. My trust is in the higher power whatever or whoever that is. I know nature is my higher power and there is likely a higher power above her maybe in the heart of the Milky Way. My point is this is about trade offs that are above our existence and comprehension.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 8:05 pm
Templar,
“You are opposed to the expansion of nuclear power because it would, well, kill billions of people, theoretically.
But what really needs to happen is, well, er, billions of people need to die.”
Do you not see the dilemma?
There is no answer for 7 billion plus people, and growing at the rate of 200,000 per day. Our population is in overshoot Temp. That overshoot is the result of human energy production. That energy production is what has allowed us to destroy the only planet that we will ever have to live on. We either stop now, and face the consequences, or we continue on the same path and face worse consequences.
There is no human solution to a natural problem. We are not in control of nature Temp, no matter how much we foolishly think that we are. We are bound to the same laws of nature as every other species of animal on this planet. We may have cheated nature for a short while, but there are consequences to that.
Makati1 on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 8:13 pm
Penury, Fukushima was designed, constructed and run by General Electric. Last time I checked, GE was an American company.
Three Mile Island: “The plant was originally built by General Public Utilities Corporation, later renamed GPU Incorporated.[8] The plant was operated by Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed),…The plant is widely known for having been the site of the most significant accident in United States commercial nuclear energy, on 28 March 1979, when TMI-2 suffered a partial meltdown.”
There are no “safe” nuke plants. There are a lot of aging ones waiting to fail, though.
Bet that if GE were building this plant instead of the ‘bad’ Chinese, the press would never have even mentioned it except in a positive light.
JuanP on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 8:32 pm
I’ve gone from pro nuclear to anti nuclear and back to pro nuclear again.
My approach is relatively selfish. I am only concerned with my wife’s wellbeing and my own. I am an admitted selfish bastard. My position is that I want BAU to last as long as possible regardless of the medium and long term consequences because I don’t give a frigg what happens to humanity after my wife and I are gone, so I want all the electricity generation capacity we can get, including nuclear power plants.
I do think that most nuclear power plants will become a fuck up sooner or later, hopefully I won’t be around by then.
P.S. TM, I think every human being in the planet should be sterilized after having one child at the latest. The best thing would be to create a virus that made all men sterile.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 8:43 pm
Men can’t have babies Juan. Miss one male, and the potential exists for hundreds of babies born every year. Sterilize women, on the other hand, miss one and she can only have one baby every nine months.
JuanP on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 9:20 pm
Greg, I wouldn’t mind a few hundred or even a few million births a year. I was thinking we could use all the frozen sperm saved in banks to fertilize some women after the epidemic was over, and even give our species a second chance, if it is not already too late. 😉
Separating human reproduction from sexual intercourse is the only way out, IMO, anything that brings about that outcome would be welcome. I know I’m like a rabbit myself. 😉
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 9:36 pm
Oh well. I guess that, under any circumstances, the folks in Karachi are just plain outta luck, by this groups reckoning, eh?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 9:41 pm
And GregT, at what point did you determine the planet couldn’t handle the number of humans currently hanging out?
Was it a few years back, when we hit 6 billion, or was it a bit further back, when we hit 5?
At what point did 7 billion figure into your calculations? 8? 9?
Davy on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 10:09 pm
Temp, we are heading the wrong way with population growing and energy intensity shrinking. Food productivity is dropping. The FF descent could happen over years depending on what kind of global triage occurs. IOW what states will have their oil IV removed. I suspect we should be around a 1930’s economic level in 10 years and 1960 population level of 3BIL in 20 years. This type of descent will cause an economic descent in and of itself. Everything I have read about sustained long term human carrying capacity is 1BIL. I imagine less than 1BIL due to environmental degradation and the coming AGW storm. That is just me throwing a dart.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 10:20 pm
Temp,
Have you been paying attention lately to what is occurring on the planet that you live on? From your posts, it is becoming clearer to me that you have not. I think that it’s pretty safe to say that we are in mass overshoot. At what point that began, really doesn’t matter. My best guess? Long before both of us were born. Probably when we surpassed around 1 billion people.
I think I’m beginning to get you. You believe that technology will somehow solve all of our problems. Correct?
clueless on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 10:53 pm
Hooooray for all the Power Plants in the entire world…be it aging, just built, and going to be built. They inevitably are all going to annihilate us sooner or later. One of the many Frankenstein creations humanity has given (been giving) this existence.
Pardon my grammar..second language.
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 10:57 pm
What would your first language be clueless?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:29 pm
And clueless, no need for power plants. We were done at 1 billion, by Greg’s account.
That was, more or less, about 1800. If only Napoleon has killed off a few more, perhaps we’d be in better shape now.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:33 pm
And GregT, no, I don’t think technology will solve everything. I’m just struggling with the idea of 6.5 people starving to death.
That certainly doesn’t seem any worse than using technology to try to avoid that outcome.
I guess in some ways I look at it as, well, all the nuclear plants I envision have 6 billion we can kill, and I’d still be 500 million ahead of the game.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:43 pm
And, damn. Now that I look at it, I’ve got to get busy!
By the worst case estimate, Helen Caldicott’s, nuke plants have only killed about a million so far. And that’s after about 60 years of trying.
We’re clearly behind schedule. Better get moving.
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:53 pm
And Davy, I mean, really? If you’re envisioning 6 out of every 7 human beings taking the deep dive, you’re still thinking you’re going to be the 1 that makes it?
Prep or no prep?
GregT on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:53 pm
Temp,
Not my account. But much easier to shoot me down I guess? Like so many other issues of our time, there are opposing viewpoints. If one can get beyond their emotions, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where we are headed.
Human technology is in opposition to nature. Human technology is destroying the natural biosphere. We can live without modern technology, but we will not survive without a healthy natural environment. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?
What exactly do you believe that generating even more energy will do to solve any of our problems?
TemplarMyst on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:59 pm
Greg,
Well, I thought I’d pointed that out in past posts, even within the comments section on this one.
I’m envisioning more energy leading to a higher standard of living leading to a smaller population leading to our coming back within the natural carrying capacity of the planet.
I’ve further envisioned using technology to undo many of the wounds we’ve inflicted on the planet. Starting with water, then soil, and ultimately the atmosphere.
Yeah, it ain’t likely any of this will happen. But on the flip side I don’t see how mass die off coupled with climate change winds up with an even moderately preserved natural biosphere.
GregT on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:03 am
If you don’t mind me asking Temp, where abouts are you from, and how old are you? People’s perspectives are very much influenced by their own immediate circumstances. I’m only trying to establish a baseline.
TemplarMyst on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:05 am
I was born and raised in Los Angeles, attended college in Omaha, and currently live in the northern suburbs of Chicago.
I’m 52 years old.
GregT on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:09 am
One year younger than me, and also living in an urban environment. That surprises me.
OK, baseline established. Let’s continue to attempt to solve the worlds problems.
GregT on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:16 am
Do you agree that climate change is happening, and do you agree that it imposes a real threat to most, if not all life on this planet?
TemplarMyst on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:16 am
Well, okay. Er, but, I mean, do I need to go looking for your suggestions? I don’t post on this site that often, so if you’ve laid out your ideas and I missed em, just send me a PM or link to a representative sample in the next comment.
So far I’ve only encountered a basic perspective that we’re in overshoot and there just ain’t much we can do about it, or mebbe even should do about it.
But, like I said, I’ve only seen a small sample of what you have written.
TemplarMyst on Mon, 9th Mar 2015 12:18 am
Yes, climate change is happening, it is caused by us, and it is a very serious threat to the entire planet.