I feel inclined to side with the point Chip is arguing about this topic. There are indeed benefits to nuclear energy over other more environmentally destructive forms of energy, but it can also result in catastrophic mishaps, as demonstrated by the recent disaster in Japan.

In looking through the New York Times at recent articles about this, I found an interesting post on an environmental blog. Eleven short days after Japan was struck by the tragic 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that leveled the northern countryside and the nuclear power station in the city of Fukushima, environmentalists were debating the strengths of and flaws with nuclear energy. That article can be found here, and links to the full articles referenced in the piece embedded within.

It's especially intriguing because the two environmentalists quoted take two opposing viewpoints; one arguing for the danger of nuclear energy, as demonstrated by the disaster in Japan, and the other having been convinced by the disaster that nuclear energy is the way of the future, and that the most recent catastrophe was an isolated incident.

I can't help but side with the prior. In his argument entitled "Japan’s horror reveals how thin is the edge we live on," environmentalist Bill McKibben cites the technological sophistication of Japan, using this as evidence for the unpredictability of natural disasters and the destruction that they leave in their wake. "There’s not a country in the world more modern and civilized than Japan; its building codes and engineering prowess kept its great buildings from collapsing when the much milder quake in Haiti last year flattened everything. But clearly it’s not enough." If a country that is this far advanced cannot protect itself from the force that Mother Nature unleashes, it's difficult to make the argument that another disaster like this could be seen in the future, with perhaps much more devastating consequences.

On the other side of the argument, environmentalist George Monbiot discusses "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power." He emphasizes that there are much more severe outcomes that could result from the use of coal, and other "products of the land," which he asserts are far more damaging than nuclear energy. He also makes a point of exposing what he refers to as "A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting." Essentially, Japan did a pretty bad job on construction, and should have known that a natural disaster described by the adjectives "monster" and "vast" would soon destroy it.

While "products of the land" in terms of energy from coal, gas, and nuclear plants all come with the weight of environmental and atmospheric destruction (some obviously pose greater risks than others), I don't think we can look at these options as the only ones we have. As Chip brought up in his post, less environmentally damaging paths such as wind, solar, and hydropower sources of energy are still viable.

McKibben also suggests that "The other possibility is to try to build down a little: to focus on resilience, on safety. And to do that – here’s the controversial part – instead of focusing on growth." In his view, we need to both protect our citizens and look toward the sustainable future, not just what will advance us most quickly.

_Diana Pitcher.

The True Costs of Nuclear Power

I'm a tad bit dismayed whenever I hear people talk about nuclear power as a viable alternative. It is absolutely true that nuclear power, unlike coal and oil, does not directly emit carbon and therefore does not contribute to global warming. However, this ignores the huge environmental issues posed by the existence of radioactive nuclear waste. We have no long term plans for storing the waste we have now, none the less all of the waste that would be produced by expanded nuclear power over a sustained period of time. Remember, the longer nuclear power goes on for the more waste is created and the old waste isn't going to become less radioactive in any of our lifetimes (and probably not in the lifetime of our species) so it will keep compiling, requiring new storage sites. Even if we were to open Yucca Mountain today a new storage site would be needed by 2034--that's assuming current, not expanded, levels of nuclear power. Unless someone comes up with a serious solution to the waste storage issue, nuclear power is not viable in the longterm.

That assumes no other "accidents." Yes, I know safety problems with nuclear power are very rare, but it only takes one mishap for nuclear power to have devastating consequences. I'm not being hyperbolic. Human error, human greed, and unforeseen events can have very costly consequences when it comes to nuclear power. The earthquake in Japan is proving that to us.

There's also another issue strangely absent from the nuclear power discussion--that it requires heavy subsidies. Here's what a 2011 Union of Concerned Scientist Study found

Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away...

Nuclear Power just isn't worth the cost. Instead of subsidizing a costly private product with huge risks we could instead invest massively into a public works program to create green technology which would help the environment, as well as put Americans to work.

Of course, there's the other elephant in the room so to speak. An economic system that requires endless and limitless growth is contradictory to a planet that has only finite resources. While wind, solar, etc., particularly if part of a public works program and reinvestment in American infrastructure, is nothing to scoff, longterm solutions require more radical thinking. For this, I recommend John Bellamy Foster.

Chip Gibbons

Fukushima: Setting energy independence back yet again

by Matt Boisvert

The recent disaster in Fukushima has set public confidence in nuclear power back to levels not seen since the aftermath of the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters. This really is a shame, because I believe that nuclear power, if the proper precautions are taken, could greatly lessen the current dependency for fossil fuels, something which is direly needed. Yes, green technologies such as solar and wind do exist, but, in this political and economic climate, the will does not exist for there to be any significant investment in them. These green technologies must undoubtedly become the world's main source of energy in the future, but, without the efficiency to really be viable and the political will to implement them (outside of isolated incidents like ex-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's piece in the Atlantic advocating for solar panels in the Mojave), what about now? Should we continue to rely on more dams, oil (via fracking) and coal (through mountaintop removal)?

Until recently, a possible answer to the world's need for (kinda, sorta) renewable energy was the nuclear option. While hardly cheap, nuclear reactors could, and do (currently producing about 13% of the world's energy), with a low carbon impact. New nuclear reactors are surprisingly efficient, and have a startlingly low chance of an incident or meltdown happening, having completely eliminated the possibility of incidents of the sort that are currently happening in Japan. As long as proper precautions are taken (such as not building reactors on fault lines) there is a virtually zero percent chance of a nuclear accident in modern reactors. Perhaps more importantly, the political will existed to have them built; the expansion of nuclear power was a key tenet in both the Obama and McCain energy policies in the 2008 presidential campaign. This political consensus and will have probably disappeared in the P.R. disaster (and actual disaster) of Fukushima. Now nuclear power will again be dismissed, and plans curtailed, as they were after Chernobyl.

Granted, nuclear power is not all sunshine and roses. There is the fact that the production of nuclear energy has the unfortunate side effect of producing radioactive waste, which there is no good way to dispose of. Plans for getting rid of this highly dangerous material include storing it in a large hollowed-out mountain for several millenniums, and shooting it into space. So while there are still problems, nuclear energy is still better than oil, coal, and natural gas. It was probably the best solution to the energy crisis, with it serving as a stopgap until better green technologies can come around. Post-Fukushima, I don't see nuclear energy as a viable option any more, as far as public opinion is concerned, which is a shame. Maybe in another 25 years.

Is the accident in Japan a death sentence for nuclear power?

By Dana Muntean

Japan’s nuclear seems to reshape the world’s view on the climate change’s solution by changing world energy scenarios, and causing significant delays in investments in nuclear power.

Christiana Figueres, the United Nations' top climate change official told that the “meltdown will probably push up the costs of nuclear energy, making renewables more competitive.”

Governments in India, the United States and Europe are under pressure to review safety standards , and Germany and Switzerland intend to extend the operational life of existing plants, pending safety reviews.
The Japan crisis will trigger a massive global debate, particularly in Australia, which is home to 27 per cent of the world's reserves of uranium.

Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations says that “The Japanese disaster, though, may make moderates in the environmental community far more reticent to deal, just as the BP disaster made them less willing to deal on offshore drilling. A big swing within this bloc could have real consequences for U.S. policy on nuclear power.” and that “with nuclear power already under pressure from cheap natural gas, regulatory reactions to the latest disaster could tip the balance.”

The European Commission's top climate negotiator said that the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan will definitely have an impact on global climate change negotiations.

Artur Runge-Metzger told that the radiation crisis at the quake-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex will push the world to look for better technologies that pose less risk in the future.

Minamikawa also reiterated Japan's position on the international framework on climate change, saying, "Japan consistently aims for the early establishment of a single, fair and effective international framework with participation of all major countries.”

I think that the decisions that are made today could be the most important in human history. It depends on us if we manage to take the tremendous threats of climate change and nuclear annihilation under control or we just wait and see what else happens and don't care about the future generations.

New Interactive

This is also an interactive that might be of interest. It is on the nuclear situation in Japan, currently rated to be on a level 7 (equivalent to Chernobyl).

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/03/world/interactive.nuclear.japan/index.html

A better interactive to help explain what exactly happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12726591

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12748215

Saya

Darfur

As I was going through interactives CFR's Crisis Guide: Darfur was the most informative about the subject. It contains most of the information someone naive to the subject would want to know plus so much more. The Historical background puts the genocide into perspective of what was occurring before and when the UN passed a peacekeeping resolution. My favorite aspect of the Crisis Guide was the third chapter, which was a map of Africa. This map was interactive because it showed all the locations of conflicts since 1990 plus where there were UN/AU interventions and former colonial rule.

This is a great resource to gain information and allows the viewer to take part. It is organized and can easily be navigated.

--Sara

Where in the World is the USA?

With US participation in the NATO bombing of Libya, a heightened number of troops in Afghanistan, and an enduring presence in Iraq we hear it again and again that the US military presence is stretched oto thin. But just how stretched is it--globally speaking?

http://motherjones.com/military-maps

This interactive graphic from Mother Jones let's users view American troop presence in every country around the globe. Complete with a timeline users can view the increase (and in some cases) decline of US troops in each and every country since 1950. Also, users can click on an individual country to learn more about present US military involvement.

So while we all knew the US has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who knew there were 37 US soldiers in Brazil or that in 1990 the US had between 101-1000 troops in Zambia and today we have just 6--you do thanks to Mother Jones!

It also helps to put current events in context when we say the US has two US military sites and 288 troops in Egypt.

The sun never set on the British Empire and thanks to Mother Jones we know that it isn't setting on the American empire either. Of course, is this kind of global military presence sustainable?

While history gives us the answer to that question, that would require another graphic.

Chip Gibbons

Infographic: How happy are Americans?

Despite what we've been told about the economy (maybe? finally?!) picking up, Americans in 2011 have still found plenty to be unhappy about. According to the information in this infographic, taken from a recent Gallup Poll, some of this dissatisfaction has to do with the economy itself; only 29% of Americans feel positively about the influence of corporations on American life and politics. 42% feel positively about the direction of the government, which perhaps doesn't seem so bad, you can't please everyone after all, but paints a fairly devastating picture when compared to the 2002 high of nearly 80%. Always a pious bunch, nearly 60% of Americans are happy with the influence of religion in American. While some of my more secular peers may find this particular statistic a bit. . .confounding, one should always keep in mind that the only thing that differentiates American civil society from European civil society is church attendance. Americans really, really love going to church. At any rate, enjoy this infographic which maps out trends in American's level of satisfaction with the government, the corporate world, the influence of religion, economic opportunity, and the ethical state of the U.S.. --Abigail

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1102/satisfied-americans/flat.html

Swept Away

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?scp=2&sq=interactive%20feature&st=cse

This is an interactive feature that shows satellite images of the area affected by the tsunami in Japan. Although it is not a news feature per se and does not provide a time line and analysis of the devastation, the images are enough to represent the destruction that occurred.

Saya

Balance the budget!

by Matt Boisvert

As the US Congress approaches the expiration of the budget extension, facing a possible shut down of the federal government, the fight over exactly how much the budget should be cut is intensifying. With a plethora of newly elected Republicans (who now make up a majority of the House) insisting the budget be cut, instead of questioning whether the budget be cut, the issue has become by how much the budget must be cut, and where, exactly these cuts will come.

To help understand how the budget can be balanced, the New York Times has put together an excellent interactive graphic that allows you to balance the budget by cutting (or not) a variety of programs and/or raising taxes. It then allows you to see the effect of these changes on the budget gap for 2015 and 2030. For instance, by doing stereotypically liberal things like raising taxes and cutting Defense funds, I cured the deficit, with a predicted $52 billion surplus by 2030. While completely lacking nuance, I thought that the Times' interactive did increase my understanding of the budget, and what could be done to remedy the deficit.

The Human Side of International News

My homepage has been set to lens.blogs.nytimes.com for a few years now, since I was awed by a photo in the print version of the paper and followed the link to the full story. This section of the New York Times is what I consider to be an invaluable resource when reading and learning about events worldwide on a daily basis.

This portion of the website is home to photography, video, and visual journalism. Based on what we've learned about different types of writing in class so far, this page reminds me of a more technology-based version of a (news) feature. Each project gives you an up-close and personal look at a particular issue or what a particular person or group has to say about a given issue.

The posts are usually set up in one of two ways: a daily "Pictures of the Day" post usually features the most prominent issue in the headline along with "Elsewhere," and consists of 10-15 photos taken from locations worldwide. The second type of post is one that is set up more like a photo essay, and highlights a particular topic in a particular place; this can be portrayed in the form of a video with a narrator and/or an interview, or a series of roughly 20 photos.

This resource is a valuable one not only for the phenomenal talent of New York Times photographers, but for the added feeling of human-ness that the photos evoke. Instead of reading an article about what top officials say about the rebel forces in Libya or reading a description of the destruction in Japan, the viewer is able to visualize the violence and contention among the warring forces in Libya, and can see the state of despair and obliteration in Japan as many are left with nothing.

The subjects of the photos are regular people; not diplomats, not celebrities, not world leaders. In a way, I feel that these photos induce a sense of solidarity, and stand as a slightly more informative technique of presenting the news.

It may be a little more difficult to access now, but if you don't have a membership, I suggest using some of your 20 free article views for this month to check this out; it's well worth it.

>> lens.blogs.nytimes.com

_Diana.