Stewart Brand is an ecologist with more street cred than most. In 2009, he published Whole Earth Discipline, introducing fact-backed arguments supporting, among other things, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, and a bottoming out of population growth. I bought his logic with a sigh of relief, but as the months go by I’m getting worn down by the counter evidence.
Population
Brand: "I think a… probable peak will be 8 billion" (Whole Earth Discipline, p. 60).
Counter evidence: "The United Nations will warn this week that the world’s population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century" (The Guardian, October 22, 2011).
Nuclear Power
Brand: "Reactor safety is a problem already solved" (p. 91).
Counter evidence: Several independent reports indicate that the multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in March 2011 caused higher than reported radiation contamination (Nelle Maxey, Pacific Free Press, November 1, 2011).
GM Crops
[Bt crops are plants genetically modified to include Bt, a natural insecticide.]
Brand: "The main ecological effect of Bt crops has been a drastic reduction in pesticide use" (p. 137). [In India] "Bt cotton increased yield by 50 percent and diminished pesticide use by 50 percent" (p. 141).
Counter evidence: "Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop…. A survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced" (John Vidal, Common Dreams, October 19, 2011).
I suppose with the ongoing discussions over climate change and its likely effect, I shouldn’t be surprised at these differences in reportage and interpretation. The debate goes on.
--Julian