The Environmental Effects of Using Nuclear Energy and Coal Energy

The United States is currently provided with nuclear power by a hundred and four nuclear reactors which are licensed to operate sixty five nuclear power plants and which produce a total of 0.806 terawatts per hour of electricity. The electricity produced from nuclear power makes up slightly more than nineteen percent of the total electricity production in the United States and this makes it the biggest supplier of commercial nuclear power in the world. The use of nuclear power in the United States began in earnest in the 1970s when most of the nuclear power plants were built but the changing economic situation and the Three Mile Island accident led to the cancellation of most of the projects that were intended to expand the use of nuclear energy. Since the year 1974, there has been no new ground breaking for the purpose of setting up new nuclear power plants although a number of nuclear reactor units have been constructed at these plants. However, there has recently been a revival of interest in nuclear energy and this new interest has largely been fostered by the Nuclear Power 2010 Program which was established in the year 2000.

There has been an increase in the number of nuclear reactors being constructed since 2010 in existing power plants such as the one at Watts Bar, Tennessee. In spite of the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy, most of the projects which have been set up for the construction of nuclear reactors have been recently cancelled. This is mainly due to the economic challenges that are currently gripping the nation as well as the negative reaction that came in the wake of the recent nuclear accidents in Japan. Officials in the nuclear industry state that they only expect about five new nuclear reactors to be working in the next eight years because of the hindrances which have made most of their projects to stall.

Since the beginning of its usage, there has been a lot of debate about the use of nuclear power in the United States and this has recently intensified due to talk of a coming renaissance in the use of nuclear energy. Some of the most hotly debated issues concerning the use of nuclear energy have been matters concerning the public safety and these have included the following: the possibility of the occurrence of nuclear accidents; ways through which the radioactive nuclear waste can safely be disposed of; the possibility of a race towards nuclear proliferation in the world; the cost of setting up nuclear power plants; and finally, the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material and using it for their activities. Reservations about the use of nuclear energy have been expressed by a number of scientists and other experts with many of them questioning the safety of its use. Some have even gone as far as stating their disapproval of the new technology that has been developed for the purpose of ensuring that nuclear reactors produce more energy.

There have been concerns about people being exposed to low level exposure to radiation and the people who have expressed these concerns are completely opposed to the commercialization of nuclear energy in the United States. Some have said that the cost of building nuclear power plants as well as maintaining them is not worth it because other cheaper forms of clean energy can be developed for much less. Proponents of nuclear energy state that it is the only option which is available if we are to achieve our vision of fighting global warming through the development of clean energy. In fact, they state that nuclear energy is many times safer than other forms of energy and that the large amounts of energy small amounts of nuclear material produce offset the cost of the construction of nuclear power plants.

Most of the negative impacts of nuclear power on the environment arise from the nuclear fuel cycle as well as from effects which are brought about when a nuclear accident occurs. When compared to coal energy, the health risks and the harmful gas emissions to the environment associated to nuclear energy are quite minimal. However, although this occurs very rarely, nuclear power also brings with it catastrophic risks and one of these is the possibility of nuclear fuel that is over heated releasing large amounts of fission products to the environment. It is the large scale risks associated with nuclear energy which makes the public very much opposed to the use of nuclear power. When compared to coal energy, nuclear energy requires a resolution of the high level waste storage issue which is not a factor in the use of coal because it does not produce radioactive waste which can harm the environment. Nuclear accidents can be very harmful to the environment because it brings about large amounts of radiation which can affect the area involved for a very long time. However, when compared to coal, this energy source is very effective because it does not release large amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment.

Moreover, coal is one of the most environmentally unfriendly sources of energy because the gases it releases to the atmosphere not only cause global warming, but it also contributes to the formation of acid rain. It would therefore be best to continue with the development of nuclear energy because it is not only cost effective in the long term but it is also very environmentally friendly if handled correctly. In comparison to coal energy, which needs large amounts of coal to produce, nuclear energy requires only small quantities of uranium in order to produce large quantities of energy, perhaps even larger than what coal produces. It is a well known fact that mining is very detrimental to the environment and therefore, it would be preferable to mine uranium, which is needed only in small quantities to produce nuclear energy, than to mine coal which is needed in large quantities and leads to environmental degradation.

A Global Environmental Curriculum

The need to develop a proper global curriculum to ensure that students are from an early age able to learn about sustaining the environment and taking active steps to achieve it has become important in the twenty first century. This is because it allows for the development of environmental consciousness among students from an early stage of their education so that they can be more proactive in their seeking to ensure environmental sustainability. A lot of literature has been written concerning this subject and it has been highly revealing concerning the diverse issues that have come about as a result of the need for the creation of an adequate curriculum which can be used for the purpose of making sure that environmental sustainability is secured.

The concept of child-centered play has not been adequately used for the purpose of making sure that there is an increase in knowledge concerning the environment in children. They suggest that it is essential for environmental education to be put in the early childhood curriculum because it is the best way through which children can learn about the environment from an early age. Furthermore, it is a means of promoting environmental sustainability through the creation of play-based learning experiences which are designed to make sure that children are provided with knowledge through a pedagogical approach. Such an approach would make it possible for children to learn and develop knowledge concerning environmental conservation early enough to ensure that they grow up knowing the different problems affecting their environment and how best to sustain it for future generations. Edwards and Carter-Mackenzie, in line with Ritchie (2013), are extremely incisive concerning the manner through which environmental education should be conducted because it promotes environmental awareness from early on in the lives of individuals. The ideas presented within this article can also be considered to be the best means through which the global environmental education curriculum can be developed in such a way that it becomes possible for children to acquire environmental knowledge in their formative years. It is also a means, through the use of play, that teachers can be able to impart the knowledge that they have concerning the environment on children while at the same time keeping the latter interested in the issues involved. Furthermore, it would lead to the promotion of greater efforts through which children would be more capable of recognizing the different methods of environmental sustainability that can be applied to achieve greater awareness for the environment and the need to protect it. However, despite the numerous advantages that can be brought about through the introduction of environmental conservation in early childhood education, the means through which it can be effectively achieved are not discussed in the article. The effective implementation of this method into the curriculum would entail making sure that the subject is introduced into play in such a way that children become active participants in the process; meaning that they have to be helped through acquiring the knowledge that they need while at play so that their full attention is given to the subject.

Kennely, Taylor, and Serow (2011) state that the national curriculum that is being developed in Australia is one which puts a lot of stock on the need for teachers to ensure that they teach their students about sustainability. This is especially the case where this curriculum claims to support teachers in every way to ensure that they have the necessary experience to effectively teach sustainability to their students. However, the study conducted by these authors suggests that sustainability is not adequately represented in the curriculum to such an extent that there is a serious possibility that it could eventually be omitted from the teacher education and qualification system at all levels. The lack of proper education concerning sustainability in the educational curriculum in Australia, despite the many comments in support of it, can be considered to be extremely dangerous because students lack the necessary knowledge to ensure that they are sufficiently aware of the environment to take active action to protect it. Furthermore, the lack of emphasis concerning the best way through which sustainability can be included in the curriculum can be considered to be a serious discrepancy because it might lead to a situation where teachers are no longer required to provide environmental education; meaning that students in future will lack the necessary guidance concerning how best to conserve their environment.

This study is extremely relevant because it provides a glimpse of the possible problems that are involved in the Australian curriculum especially when it involves sustainability. Without the active role of the education system, environmental sustainability will not be as important a subject as it should be because it will no longer form an essential part of the curriculum. It is noted that within the Australian education system, teachers are increasingly no longer required to have knowledge concerning sustainability in order to qualify to teach and this is a matter of concern because sustainability is one of the most important issues of concern in the world today. The need to promote sustainability in the education of teachers, especially at a primary level should be considered an essential part of making sure that it remains a significant part of the Australian curriculum. Such knowledge among teachers would go a long way in making sure that students are also taught to have a respect for the environment in such a way that helps in their taking an active part in conservation efforts. Moreover, the addition of sustainability subjects in the development of national curriculum proposals would go a long way in making sure that teachers remain consistent in helping students know more about the environment because it will be an essential part of the education system rather than an afterthought as the current situation is. Sustainability should not only be proposed, but should also be enforced in the Australian curriculum because it will allow for a more focused approach when it comes to the cultivation of a more knowledgeable generation of students concerning the environment.

References

Edwards, S. & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising Early Childhood Education Curriculum through Pedagogies of Play. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 51 – 61.

Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., & Serow, P. (2011). Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 209–218.

Ritchie, J. (2013). Sustainability and relationality within early childhood care and education settings in aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 307-326.

Marxism and Ecologism

Over the last few decades, issues concerning the political involvement in environmental preservation have become prominent. This is because of an increasing awareness concerning the environment as well as the need to ensure that it is protected for the sake of future generations. The need to preserve the environment has become a paramount political issue which has either been adopted or rejected by the different ideological standpoints that occupy the political space today. It is essential to note that the merger of political and environmental ideologies has become a basic part of the politics of the contemporary world and this is the reason why alliances between political parties and environmentalist groups are being formed. Among the most prominent ideologies that have emerged in the contemporary world are Marxism and ecologism; ideologies that can either be compared or contrasted.

According to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. As a result, neither the earth nor nature should be provided importance when it comes to situations where labour is concerned. Labour is the primary concern of anthropocentrism and it is the basis upon which this concept has been developed. As opposed to ecocentrism, anthropocentrism promotes the importance of labour over nature, with the latter being considered to be inconsequential because it does not have a direct effect on the management of labour. The anthropocentric approach recognises that there is need for some form of environmental protection because it allows for the development of a better means through which individuals in society can be able to apply their labour for their own benefit. However, there are instances where the environment interferes with the way that labour is conducted and managed and this creates a situation where it is essential for issues concerning the environment to be set aside so that labour can be given more prominence. This approach further recognises that man does not have any control over the environment and that the latter cannot be brought under control by any means. It is therefore reasonable that man does not concentrate too much on nature or the environment to such an extent that labour and its products come to be ignored.

The ecocentric approach on the other hand is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. This concept recognises that the environment is the most important thing in the world and that it is man’s responsibility to ensure that his activities do not cause it harm. Without the intervention of man, it is believed that the integrity of the environment will become compromised and might end up creating a situation where man as a race, in addition to wildlife, will end up suffering. The ability of man to conduct his activities with utmost consideration for the preservation of nature is essential because it allows for the development of better means through which man and nature can coexist in a constructive manner. This concept is one that indicates that man has a responsibility to nature as well as having a responsibility for nature; meaning that he has to do everything possible so that nature can be preserved, but that its integrity be maintained.

The anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. In this way, the economic value of natural resources should be the main reason why man interacts with nature and this should involve the exploitation of these resources to ensure that the value of labour is increased. Without the resources that are contained within it, nature would not have any value because there would be nothing within it that would ensure that it is not only exploited, but also given the attention that it receives. The ability of man to exploit nature for its resources is the reason why it is important for the economy because it is these resources which make it thrive. The preservation of nature would mean that most of its resources would not be exploited; making it difficult for labour to be employed for the purpose. Such a situation would create a situation where individuals in society would end up living in a primitive way where the inequalities that are present in society would be further maximised; leading to chaos.

The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Nature should not only be exploited for its resources, but there should be means through which these resources are exploited in a responsible manner, so that instead of concentrating on maximising the profits gained; individuals should develop better means of ensuring that their exploitation does not degrade nature. Under such circumstances, ecocentrism is similar in approach to anthropocentrism because the latter also recognises that nature should not be exploited for the purpose of profit but instead to ensure that there is some form of benefit for labour. Without this benefit, it would essentially be useless to exploit natural resources because it would mean that the profits gained would end up benefiting the bourgeoisie. The econcentric approach, however, is opposed to the anthropocentric one where nature can be exploited for its resources without any need to preserve its integrity. Instead, it proposes that any approach that exploits nature and ends up destroying its stability, beauty, or integrity is a wrong one because it does not consider any respect for nature.

While it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. This is especially the case in situations where the environment ends up being unstable as a result of being massively exploited. Not only does it lead to its destruction, but it also creates a situation where the environment becomes hostile to man. The conquest of nature is considered to be futile and any attempt to do so would be detrimental to the welfare of human beings. The stance taken by the anthropocentric approach can be considered to be a contradiction because while it advocates for the unlimited exploitation of nature for the benefit of labour, it also calls for caution because the destabilisation of nature as a result of activities of exploitation would bring about a situation where nature would take its revenge. Therefore, one would suggest that anthropocentrism takes on a middle ground in matters concerning environmental preservation; a situation that makes it questionable as a political concept in the contemporary world where environmental protection is paramount.

The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. This change can be seen through some of the laws that were passed by Russia during the Soviet Union which attempted to reduce the impact of individuals on the environment. One such law forbade the destruction of any non-commercial wild animals except for those that had a potential of either harming the economy or the health of the people within the state. This approach shows a need for man to take responsibility for his actions towards nature and this should be done in such a way that its integrity is protected. The exploitation of nature for its resources is an essential part of human civilisation because it allows for the development of an easier way of life. However, the anthropocentric approach is one which advocates for the primacy of labour over nature, so that nature is used for the latter rather than labour working towards the preservation of nature. There are instances where this approach puts importance in the need to preserve the environment because it is realised that to do otherwise would mean the destruction of life as it is and the end of labour. Among the events that are referred to in this approach as having taken place as a result of man’s manipulation of nature is the Chernobyl disaster, which can be considered to be nature’s way of taking revenge on human attempts to tame it.

It is essential to note that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. This ethical deficiency on the part of developing moral guidelines on how to treat the environment has led to a situation where it has become extremely difficult for man to conduct his activities with consideration for nature. The need to ensure that the use of land as well as other natural resources is conducted in a way that preserves the latter has been forgotten in a bid to ensure that commercial interests are protected. The result is that commercial interests have taken a hand in directing laws concerning the environment, through their lobbies, so that these laws do not in any way interfere with their destructive activities. both of these approaches states that the contemporary society does not recognise the importance of nature and the need to ensure that the environment is preserved in such a way that future generations will be able to exploit its resources while continuing to maintain a balance. The lack of moral obligation towards the environment is blamed by both approaches as being the reason behind the massive levels of degradation that has been taking place and they warn that this disregard might result to disaster for the entire planet.

While the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. Among these is its propagation of there being a need for a proper means of protecting the environment through the development of a set of laws based on the rights of nature. It is through these laws that it can be possible for environmental protection to be brought from the realm of idealism to reality. According to the ecocentric approach, in order to make environmental protection viable, it is essential for the principles guiding the process to be converted to legal concepts that can be used to ensure that the process becomes a reality. This is an approach that has gained traction in recent years and it has led to the beginning of a legal process whose purpose is to gain recognition for the worth of the environment and the need to preserve it.

 In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that according to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. This is countered by the ecocentric approach which is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. In addition, it is stated that the anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Moreover, while it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. Furthermore, it has been noted that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. Finally, while the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment.