영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook

2021/04/12

What do you think about the movie 'The great global warming swindle'? - Quora

What do you think about the movie 'The great global warming swindle'? - Quora:

What do you think about the movie "The great global warming swindle"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

8 Answers

Peter Dixon

, Consultant (2001-present)

Answered March 8, 2015

I just watched this in its entirety tonight. The thoughts I had throughout the program were:

Are they proposing that there is no consequence at all of dumping an unlimited amount of carbon into the atmosphere?

Is it really plausible that people concerned about global warming are greedy bastards trying to cash-in? Isn't more likely that they are worried about the welfare and safety of millions or billions of their fellow world citizens and themselves? And that the global warming deniers are the ones most likely financially benefit from their actions, at least the ones at the top who control carbon resources.

Things are getting better in terms of solar energy and energy storage especially by Elon Musk through Telsa and Solar City. The problems that were had by that clinic powered with solar cells could be resolved by more and more efficient batteries and a battery in the form that is going to be produced by Musk's GigaFactory.

China is burning plenty of fossil fuels and is presently choking on them. They need to move to renewables just to be able to breathe properly.

After the film was over I thought what I have always thought on the matter. If you are wrong about Global Warming we are all screwed. Therefore it makes sense to assume the idea is correct and try to act accordingly. Anyways, those precious resources won't last more than a few hundred years at most. Why not make the switch to renewables now and preserve them? It'll be hundreds of millions of years before we can make more!

409 views

Eric Pepke

, works at Cisco

Answered January 24, 2013

All the points have been debunked many times.

However, I think there's a key thing to understand. Not all scientists are the same. What a scientist says about something that is not in their field, well, they might be able to explain what's going on better (though maybe not), but their opinion isn't worth much more than the average schmoe. It's difficult enough to keep up with the details of one field, let alone others.

So, as we would expect, the consensus is much stronger amongst climatologists who have studied global rather than regional patterns, stronger amongst meteorologists than physicists, and stronger amongst physicists than, say, computer scientists. Ultimately, it doesn't matter much whether someone is a "scientist" if they don't know what's going on in the field they are talking about.

Take me, for instance. (Please!) I was convinced of AGW back in the 1990s. However, while I did give a paper at the American Meteorological Society, my work was in thunderstorm formation (mostly convection) and regional climatology (mostly El Niño). I've seen papers on global climatology, but I was also involved enough in scalability of simulations and certain fairly obvious things like the incompressibility of the Navier-Stokes equations to have some skepticism about the calculations, though I judged them probably to be right enough. I've done a fair amount with general fluid dynamics and chaos, and I did a tiny bit of stuff with Antarctic ice cores.

This puts me ahead of all but one or two people I've seen in public fora about the subject and certainly way ahead of the majority of scientists. Still, I'm so far from the folks who do climatology that, to a zeroth approximation, I might as well be considered a complete ignoramus. I'll state my opinion, but only if I can give enough caveats as I have in this message. I wouldn't be caught dead on a video like this one that someone else could edit.

440 views

View 10 upvotes

1 comment from Marcin Krol

Joshua Engel

, I block and mute climate change deniers

Answered January 23, 2013

It's very difficult to respond critically to a video. The video plays; to reply to it you have to stop it, transcribe the argument, rebut it, and then return to it. That makes videos great tools of persuasion, but poor ways to actually learn about a complex issue.

I doubt, however, that this video is covering anything that hasn't been done a thousand times before, and debunked a thousand times before. Here are a couple lengthy lists of denialist arguments and scientific responses to them:

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

If you like, you can go through the video, stopping after each argument, and then going to look up what some scientist has said about it. If that seems like too much work, and so you end up giving them the benefit of the doubt since they seem to know what they're talking about... well, that's why they made the video.

Oh, and one more thing: yes, this also applies to films like An Inconvenient Truth. The difference is that An Inconvenient Truth, while flawed, is backed at its major points by work that isn't rebutted and which has withstood repeated scientific scrutiny. If you want to know actual truth, you look at the work of actual climatologists in any climatology journal, or read a summary of their work by climatologists, such as:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

1.6K views

View 24 upvotes

4 comments from Bulat Bochkariov and more

Just a load of hot air | Climate science denial | The Guardian

Just a load of hot air | Climate science denial | The Guardian
Just a load of hot air
George Monbiot
This article is more than 11 years old

A book denying that climate change is man-made has been greeted with derision by experts. So why, wonders George Monbiot, has the Spectator swallowed the line so enthusiastically?

Fri 10 Jul 2009 09.01 AEST

Seldom has a book been as cleanly murdered by scientists as Ian Plimer's Heaven + Earth, which purports to show that man-made climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data. Here's a flavour of the reviews:

"Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear." - Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences.

"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not 'merely' atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken." - Professor Michael Ashley, astrophysicist at the University of New South Wales.

"If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: you have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!" - Professor Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and President of the Australian Academy of Science.

Here are just a few of the book's elementary howlers:

Plimer uses a graph produced for the 2007 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4: the programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the film corrected the timeline. But Plimer leaves the graph - and its convenient error - intact.

He claims that only 4% of the CO² in the atmosphere is produced by humans. In fact the pre-industrial concentration was roughly 280 parts per million. Human activities have now raised this to 387ppm - you can work it out for yourself.

For a professor of geology, Plimer makes some astonishing errors about volcanoes. He claims that Mount Pinatubo released "very large quantities of chloroflourocarbons". The source he cites for this claim says the opposite. Like The Great Global Warming Swindle (from which several of the claims in his book appear to originate), he maintains that volcanoes produce more CO² than humans. In fact, humans produce 130 times more CO² than volcanoes.

Ashley noticed in Plimer's book "an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled 'The sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass'. This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98% hydrogen and helium, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."

You would think all this would be enough to bury the book. You would be wrong. In one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year, the Spectator has made the book's British publication its cover story, with the headline "Relax: global warming is all a myth". Its story consists of a hagiography of Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows - and cares - less about science than I do about formula one.

Plimer's book, he says, demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming "is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history".

Delingpole takes the opportunity to cite the usual conspiracy theories about the "powerful and very extensive body of vested interests" working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and the Sun to Science magazine. That took some organising.

What the article shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction. The quality of the evidence has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how comprehensively the sources have been discredited, or how ridiculous the claims are. People such as Plimer and Delingpole will cling on to anything that allows them to maintain their view of the world. But why did the editor of the Spectator let them use the magazine as a platform for their nutty conspiracy theories?

monbiot.com

Michael Shellenberger - Wikipedia

Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger in 2017
Education Earlham College (1993)[1]
Alma mater Earlham College [1]
Subject Energy, global warming, human development
Notable awards Hero of the Environment, 2008, Green Book Award, 2008

Michael Shellenberger (born 1971) is a journalist and author. He has co-edited and written a number of books, including

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (2007),
An Ecomodernist Manifesto (2015), and
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (2020).[2][3][4]

A former public relations professional, Shellenberger's writing has focused on the intersection of climate change, nuclear energy, and politics.

He argues for an embrace of modernization, and technological development usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization.[5][6][7][8]
Shellenberger and frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus have been described by Slate as "ecomodernists".[9][10]
A controversial and polarizing figure,[11] Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.[12][13][14][15]

Contents
1Education and career
2Writing and Reception
2.1"The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming in a Post-Environmental World"
2.2Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
2.3An Ecomodernist Manifesto
2.4Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
3See also
4References
5External links

Education and career[edit]

Shellenberger graduated from the Peace and Global Studies program at Earlham College in 1993.[1] After graduating from Earlham, Shellenberger moved to San Francisco to work with Global Exchange. He then founded a number of public relations firms, including "Communication Works," "Lumina Strategies," and "American Environics" with future collaborator Ted Nordhaus.[16][17][18][19]

Shellenberger co-founded the Breakthrough Institute with Nordhaus in 2003.[2] While at Breakthrough, Shellenberger wrote a number of articles with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas,[20][21][22][23] to critiques of the planetary boundaries hypothesis.[24]

In February 2016 Shellenberger left Breakthrough and founded Environmental Progress,[25] which is behind several public campaigns to keep nuclear power plants in operation.[26][27][28][29][30] Shellenberger has also been called by conservative lawmakers to testify before congress about climate change and in favor of nuclear energy.[31]

Writing and Reception[edit]

"The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming in a Post-Environmental World"[edit]

In 2004 Nordhaus and Shellenberger co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World." The paper argued that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born.

Former Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope called the essay "unclear, unfair and divisive." He said it contained multiple factual errors and misinterpretations. However, former Sierra Club President Adam Werbach praised the authors' arguments.[32]

Former Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando said in 2005, referring to both Shellenberger and his coauthor Ted Nordhaus, "These guys laid out some fascinating data, but they put it in this over-the-top language and did it in this in-your-face way."[33]

Michel Gelobter and other environmental experts and academics wrote The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century in response, criticizing "Death" for demanding increased technological innovation rather than addressing the systemic concerns of people of color.[34]
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility[edit]

In 2007 Shellenberger and Nordhaus published Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. The book is an argument for what its authors describe as a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the environmentalist focus on nature protection for a new focus on technological innovation to create a new economy. They were named Time magazine Heroes of the Environment (2008) after writing the book,[35][36] and received the 2008 Green Book Award from the science journalist John Horgan.[11]

The Wall Street Journal wrote that, "If heeded, Nordhaus and Shellenberger's call for an optimistic outlook -- embracing economic dynamism and creative potential -- will surely do more for the environment than any U.N. report or Nobel Prize."[37]

However, academics Julie Sze and Michael Ziser argued that Break Through continued the trend Gelobter pointed out related the authors' commitment to technological innovation and capital accumulation instead of focusing on systemic inequalities that create environmental injustices. Specifically Sze and Ziser argue that Nordhaus and Shellenberger's "evident relish in their notoriety as the 'sexy' cosmopolitan 'bad boys' of environmentalism (their own words) introduces some doubt about their sincerity and reliability." The authors asserted that Shellenberger's work fails "to incorporate the aims of environmental justice while actively trading on suspect political tropes," such as blaming China and other Nations as large-scale polluters so that the United States may begin and continue Nationalistic technology-based research-and-development environmentalism, while continuing to emit more greenhouse gases than most other nations. In turn, Shellenberger and Nordhaus seek to move away from proven Environmental Justice tactics, "calling for a moratorium" on "community organizing." Such technology-based "approaches like those of Nordhaus and Shellenberger miss entirely" the "structural environmental injustice" that natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina make visible. Ultimately, "Shellenberger believes that community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale Environmentalism."[38]
An Ecomodernist Manifesto[edit]

In April 2015, Shellenberger joined a group of scholars in issuing An Ecomodernist Manifesto. It proposed dropping the goal of “sustainable development” and replacing it with a strategy to shrink humanity’s footprint by using natural resources more intensively through technological innovation. The authors argue that economic development is necessary to preserve the environment.[39][40]

An Ecomodernist Manifesto was met with critiques similar to Gelobter's evaluation of "Death" and Sze and Ziser's analysis of Break Through. Environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard B. Norgaard led a group of environmental scholars in a critique, arguing that Ecomodernism "violates everything we know about ecosystems, energy, population, and natural resources," and "Far from being an ecological statement of principles, the Manifesto merely rehashes the naïve belief that technology will save us and that human ingenuity can never fail." Further, "The Manifesto suffers from factual errors and misleading statements."[15]

Environmental and Art historian T.J. Demos agreed with Caradonna, and wrote in 2017 that the Manifesto "is really nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy," that functions to support oil and gas industry and as "an apology for nuclear energy." Demos continued that "What is additionally striking about the Ecomodernist document, beyond its factual weaknesses and ecological falsehoods, is that there is no mention of social justice or democratic politics," and "no acknowledgement of the fact that big technologies like nuclear reinforce centralized power, the military-industrial complex, and the inequalities of corporate globalization."[14]
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All[edit]

In June 2020, Shellenberger published Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, in which the author argues that climate change is not the existential threat it is portrayed to be in popular media and activism. Rather, he posits that technological innovation and capital accumulation, if allowed to continue and grow, will remedy environmental issues. According to Shellenberger, the book "explores how and why so many of us came to see important but manageable environmental problems as the end of the world, and why the people who are the most apocalyptic about environmental problems tend to oppose the best and most obvious solutions to solving them."[4]

Before publication the book received favourable reviews from the climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel, and from environmentalists such as Steve McCormick and Erle Ellis,[41] but reviews after publication were mixed.[11] For example, Emanuel said that while he did not regret his original positive review, he wished that "the book did not carry with it its own excesses and harmful baggage.”[42][43] In The Wall Street Journal John Tierney wrote that "Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement",[44] and favorable reviews were also published in the Financial Times [45] and Die Welt.[46]

However, in reviewing Apocalypse Never for Yale Climate Connections, Environmental Scientist Peter Gleick argued that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in 'Apocalypse Never', writing that "What is new in here isn't right, and what is right isn't new."[13] Similarly, a 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promotes his book, has been analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project; the reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change."[12] Shellenberger responded in a piece published at Environmental Progress, a publication he founded.[47] In a review for the Los Angeles Review of Books environmental economist Sam Bliss said that while "the book itself is well written," Shellenberger "plays fast and loose with the facts" and "Troublingly, he seems more concerned with showing climate-denying conservatives clever new ways to own the libs than with convincing environmentalists of anything."[36]
See also[edit]
Bright green environmentalism
References[edit]

^ Jump up to:a b c "PAGS Graduates in the Media, Academics". Earlham College. Richmond, IN. nd. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
^ Jump up to:a b Barringer, Felicity (6 February 2005). "Paper Sets Off a Debate on Environmentalism's Future". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
^ "A manifesto for a Good Anthropocene". An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Retrieved 2016-01-26.
^ Jump up to:a b Shellenberger, Michael (30 June 2020). Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. New York City, NY: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-300169-5.
^ "Orion Magazine - Evolve". Orionmagazine.org. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
^ Daren Samuelsohn, "Report: Treat climate change like 'Fight Club'," Politico, July 26, 2011
^ Lisa Friedman, "'Climate pragmatists' call for an end to Kyoto process" ClimateWire, July 26, 2011
^ Walsh, Bryan (July 26, 2011). "Fighting Climate Change by Not Focusing on Climate Change" – via content.time.com.
^ Ziser, Michael; Sze, Julie (2007). "Climate Change, Environmental Aesthetics, and Global Environmental Justice Cultural Studies". Discourse. 29 (2/3): 384–410. JSTOR 41389785.
^ Keith Kloor, "The Great Schism in the Environmental Movement," December 12, 2012
^ Jump up to:a b c Horgan, John (4 August 2020). "Does Optimism on Climate Change Make You Pro-Trump?". Scientific American. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
^ Jump up to:a b "Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change". Climate Feedback. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
^ Jump up to:a b Gleick, Peter H. (15 July 2020). "Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger". Yale Climate Connections. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
^ Jump up to:a b Demos, TJ (2017). Against the Anthropocene: Visual Culture and Environment Today. MIT Press. pp. 46–49. ISBN 9783956792106.
^ Jump up to:a b Caradonna, Jeremy L.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Borowy, Iris (2015). "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto". Resilience.
^ Armstrong, David (5 August 1997). "Progressive PR". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 April2018.
^ "New firm founded". PR Week. 2002-09-02.
^ Collier, Robert (21 August 2004). "Venezuelan politics suit Bay Area activists' talents". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
^ Franke-Ruta, Garance (18 January 2006). "Remapping the Culture Debate". The American Prospect. Archived from the original on 25 December 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
^ Totty, Michael (April 17, 2010). "Nuclear's Fall—and Rise" – via www.wsj.com.
^ Leonhardt, David (2012-07-21). "Opinion | A Ray of Hope on Climate Change". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-26.
^ Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, "A Boom in Shale Gas? Credit the Feds," Washington Post, December 16, 2011
^ Kevin Begos, "Decades of Federal Dollars Helped Fuel Gas Boom," Associated Press, September 23, 2012
^ "Boundary conditions". June 16, 2012 – via The Economist.
^ Environmental Progress home page (accessed 1 July 2017
^ McDonnell, Tim (3 February 2016). "Closing This Nuclear Plant Could Cause an Environmental Disaster". Mother Jones. Foundation For National Progress. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
^ "Open letter: Do the right thing — stand-up for California's largest source of clean energy". Save Diablo Canyon. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
^ "State Nuclear Profiles: Illinois". U.S. Energy Information Administration. 26 April 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2016.
^ "EP open letter to New York PSC". Environmental Progress. 2016-07-14.
^ "Open letter to South Korean president Moon Jae-in". Environmental Progress. 2017-05-07.
^ Shellenberger, Michael (15 January 2020). "Full Committee Hearing - An Update on the Climate Crisis: From Science to Solutions". republicans-science.house.gov. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
^ "Dead movement walking?". Salon.com. 14 January 2005. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
^ Barringer, Felicity (February 6, 2005). "Paper Sets Off a Debate on Environmentalism's Future". The New York Times.
^ Gelobter, Michel; Dorsey, Michael; Fields, Leslie; Goldtooth, Tom; Mendiratta, Anuja; Moore, Richard; Morello-Frosch, Rachel; Shepard, Peggy M.; Torres, Gerald (27 May 2005). "The Soul of Environmentalism Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century". Grist. Archived from the original on 11 July 2005.
^ Walsh, Bryan (24 September 2008). "Leaders and Visionaries: Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger". Time. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
^ Jump up to:a b Bliss, Sam (6 October 2020). "The Stories Michael Shellenberger Tells". Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
^ Jonathan Adler, The Wall Street Journal, 27 November 2007, The Lowdown on Doomsday: Why the public shrugs at global warming
^ Ziser, Michael; Sze, Julie (2007). "Climate Change, Environmental Aesthetics, and Global Environmental Justice Cultural Studies". Discourse. 29 (2/3): 384–410. JSTOR 41389785.
^ "An Ecomodernist Manifesto". Ecomodernism.org. Retrieved April 17, 2015. A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
^ Eduardo Porter (April 14, 2015). "A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development". The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2015. On Tuesday, a group of scholars involved in the environmental debate, including Professor Roy and Professor Brook, Ruth DeFries of Columbia University, and Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, Calif., issued what they are calling the "Eco-modernist Manifesto."
^ "Apocalypse Never". Reviews. HarperCollins. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
^ Emanuel, Kerry (2020-07-29). "MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel on energy and Shellenberger's 'Apocalypse' » Yale Climate Connections". Yale Climate Connections. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
^ Readfearn, Graham (2020-07-04). "The environmentalist's apology: how Michael Shellenberger unsettled some of his prominent supporters". the Guardian. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
^ Tierney, John (21 June 2020). "'Apocalypse Never' Review: False Gods for Lost Souls". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
^ Ford, Jonathan (18 September 2020). "Are cooler heads needed on climate change?". Financial Times. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
^ Stein, Hannes (20 June 2020). "Die Illusionen der Öko-Romantiker". Die Welt. Retrieved 7 February2021.
^ "Bad science and bad ethics in Peter Gleick's Review of "Apocalypse Never" at Yale Climate Connections". Environmental Progress. Retrieved 2020-08-07.

External links[edit]

2017 "탈원전 졸속 추진하는 정부에 고한다" : 네이버 블로그

"탈원전 졸속 추진하는 정부에 고한다" : 네이버 블로그

"탈원전 졸속 추진하는 정부에 고한다"

논단칼럼 / [건설동향]

2017. 7. 30. 12:59

https://blog.naver.com/hkc0929/221062925325
번역하기

대한민국의 원전 기술은 세계 톱

세계 새 원전건설 기준 자리잡아

러시아, 우크라이나 등 동유럽 7개국 정부, 원전 운영사, 규제기관 등 원자력계 고위 관계자들이 한수원을

방문해 한국원전 기술현황을 브리핑 받고 있다.

이런 행동을 하는 문정권을 국민들은 어떻게 믿으라는 것인가

그리고 해외진출이 한국이 원한다고 되는 것인가?

지금도 해외수주 때문에 어려움을 겪고 있는 상황에서도 불난 집에 부채질

하는 꼴이 돼버렸다.

일국의 대통령이랍시고 일구이언은 안하겠다고 버티는 모습이 너무 안스럽다.

이제 만일 이대로 신고리5,6호기 등 공사 중단 등 원전폐기 정책을 불법 강행하는

모양새가 계속된다면 국민의 심판을 받아야 할 시기를 촉발시키는 계기가 될 것이다.

이것이야 말로 국정농단이다. 국민들도 문재인 정권이 이정도 일줄은

꿈에도 생각 못했을 것이다.

청와대 궁궐에서 맥주 파티 코스프레만 하지말고

밖으로 나와서 국민들의 함성을 함 들어보아라 그리고 하루빨리 깨어나라

케이콘텐츠

.

2017 신고리 5·6호기, 태양광 지붕 529만 개 - 조선일보

[한삼희의 환경칼럼] 신고리 5·6호기, 태양광 지붕 529만 개 - 조선일보

[한삼희의 환경칼럼] 신고리 5·6호기, 태양광 지붕 529만 개
密度가 green이라는 에코 모더니즘 新사조
국토 좁은 형편엔 토지 덜 쓰는 에너지가 親환경일 수도

한삼희 선임논설위원
입력 2017.07.28

한삼희 수석논설위원

[한미글로벌, 칠레 태양광 발전 CM 진출]

우리 정부에 탈원전 재고(再考)를 촉구하러 방한했던 마이클 셸런버거는 '에코 모더니즘'이라는 신사조(新思潮)의 환경운동 이론가다. 감성적 구호와 도그마에 빠지지 말고 실제 결과를 놓고 판단하자는 흐름이다. 셸런버거를 포함한 18명 전문가들은 2015년 4월 '에코 모더니스트 매니페스토' 선언문을 발표했다.

환경주의 패러다임은 반(反)산업, 반(反)기술, 반(反)문명 성향이다. 과학기술이 생태를 망가뜨리고 자연을 오염시킨다는 것이다. 반면 에코 모더니즘은 '기술 낙관주의(樂觀主義)'다. 경제가 선진화하고 문명이 발달하면 환경은 깨끗해진다. 방글라데시와 뉴욕을 비교해보라. 뉴욕이 훨씬 깨끗하고 살 만하다. 남한은 숲이 울창하고 북한은 산이 벌거숭이 아닌가.

전통 환경주의 관점에서 보면 농약·비료는 생태 파괴적이다. 에코 모더니즘은 거꾸로 본다. 농약·비료가 없으면 농지 생산성이 떨어진다. 인구를 부양하기 위해 숲을 헐어내고 논밭을 더 만들어야 한다. 농약·비료·트랙터가 그걸 막아줬다. 농약·비료는 친(親)환경 기술이라는 것이다. 도시(都市)를 보는 시각도 다르다. 도시는 거주 밀집도가 높다. 거주지가 교외 지역으로 넓게 분산된 경우보다 교통, 냉·난방 등 에너지 효율이 좋다. 지하철로 출퇴근하는 것과 각자 차 타고 출퇴근하는 상황을 비교해보라. 에코 모더니스트들은 '도시는 인간이 만든 가장 녹색의 결과물'이었다고 말한다. 과학기술이 자연에 숨 쉴 공간을 남겨줬다. 밀도(密度)가 곧 그린(green)이다.

에너지에선 원자력이 가장 밀도 높은 기술이다. 매니페스토는 '원자력은 현대 경제를 지탱할 능력이 입증된 유일한 저탄소 에너지'라고 했다. 10년 전 집 지붕에 태양광을 달았다. 태양 전지판 24장짜리 가정용 표준 3㎾ 설비다. 태양광은 밤엔 안 돌아가고 낮이라도 구름 끼면 효율이 떨어진다. 이용률(최대 발전 능력 대비 전력 생산량)은 15% 정도다. 신고리 원전 5·6호기는 둘을 합쳐 280만㎾다. 원전의 작년 평균 이용률은 85%였다. 신고리 5·6호기만큼 전력을 생산해내려면 우리 집 같은 지붕 태양광이 529만 개 필요하다.

태양광에 잠재력은 있다. 10년 전과 비교해 설치비가 절반 아래로 떨어졌다. 기술은 앞으로 더 발전할 것이다. 지구 표면에 내리쬐는 태양 에너지는 인간 소비 에너지의 1만 배나 된다. 써도 써도 닳지 않는 에너지다. 다만 우리는 토지 자원이 극도로 부족한 나라다. 토지를 적게 잡아먹는 에너지일수록 환경 친화성을 평가해주는 것이 맞는다.

에코 모더니스트들은 원전 사고에 대한 공포가 이성적이지 않다고 본다. 유엔 산하 방사능 피해 조사기구(UNSCEAR·운스키어)는 2013년 후쿠시마 사고 보고서에서 '방사능으로 인한 심각한 건강 피해 사례는 없다'고 결론냈다. 보통의 시민이 1년 동안 노출되는 자연·의료 방사능은 3밀리시버트(m㏜) 정도다. CT 한 장 찍으면 10m㏜가 된다. 누적 노출량 100m㏜ 이하에선 특별한 건강 이상이 발견되지 않는다. 후쿠시마 방사능 오염 지역에서 평생 살면 10m㏜를 약간 넘는 정도라는 것이 운스키어 평가였다. 운스키어가 2015년 낸 2차 보고서를 보면 아오모리·나가사키·야마나시 등 다른 지역 갑상샘암 발병률이 되레 후쿠시마보다 높았다. 문제는 심리적 공포라는 것이다.

에코 모더니즘은 '과학기술·경제성장은 환경 파괴를 가져온다'는 명제를 부인한다. 성장과 환경 파괴를 이른바 디커플링(de-coupling)시켰다. 과학기술은 빈곤 추방과 자연 보호를 동시에 이룰 유효한 수단이라는 것이다. 지금까지 역사적 진전을 보면 큰 흐름에서 에코 모더니즘이 옳았다. 셸런버거는 2004년 '환경주의의 종언(The death of environmentalism)'이라는 문건으로 주목받았다. 환경운동이 비관적(悲觀的) 세계관을 주입하려다 시민들 배척을 받았다는 것이다. 우리에게도 해당하는 얘기일 것이다.