The ROTHBURY Music Festival held at the idyllic Double JJ Ranch near the eastern shore of Lake Michigan attracted about 40,000 music lovers from all 50 U.S. states and 15 countries. And while the four-day festival attracted musical acts as diverse as Widespread Panic, Trey Anastasio, Snoop Dogg, Modest Mouse, and Primus, politically-engaged attendees were also invited to participate in a dozen “think tank” events with the theme: “Finding Energy Independence.”

To curate ROTHBURY’S series of think tank events, Festival organizers brought in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate scientist and Stanford University professor, Dr. Stephen Schneider. Schneider helped kick-off the Think Tank series of events with a live taping of the national radio show E-Town. Joining Schneider was former Green Party Vice-Presidential candidate Winona LaDuke. The pair discussed how we might move forward with political solutions to climate change and they both put particular emphasis on the tremendous importance of the upcoming 2008 election.

“This is the fusion of information and emotion,” Schneider said of the dual roles of speakers and musicians. “The message will spread way beyond ROTHBURY.”

Think Tank events were scattered throughout the four-day festival and to keep things fresh, they were also scattered throughout the Double JJ Ranch, to give the events as broad exposure as possible.

With panel discussion names like: “The Path to Energy Independence and a New American Revolution;” “How America’s Youth are Driving the Energy Revolution;” How Do We Motivate the Masses to be Part of the Energy Revolution?” And “The Energy Revolution will not be Televised - Demanding Change from our Political Leaders and the Media,” this ecopolitical geek was in heaven. But catching all of the great panel discussions would have been a Herculean task for anyone, let alone a devoted music junkie like myself.

The ones that I did catch (besides the ones at the larger stages), were attended by a very thoughtful and interested cadre of folks, spanning the spectrum of environmentalism from committed enviros to the “green curious.” But what may have been the most special aspect of the Think Tanks themselves was seeing and hearing some real big names in music talk about what they do as individuals or as a band to lessen the environmental impact of their touring.

Speaking with particular candor about this very matter was one member of the band Sound Tribe Sector Nine who noted that they were more than a little aware of the ecological footprint of their touring the country with large coaches, tractor-trailers to haul the gear, and electricity-sucking light shows and sound systems. And even though they took steps to mitigate that impact (at one point the band used to claim carbon-neutral tours) the large footprint still tugged at him a little bit.

Festival organizers Madison House and AEG Live spoke openly about raising the bar for music other music festivals, both in terms of the actual sustainability of such a large undertaking, but also in terms of harnessing the energy from that large undertaking and focusing it on a larger social cause.  And while they succeeded at raising that bar, I’m guessing they see room for improvement and will come back with an even more impressive festival experience next year and for years to come.

Other Posts About ROTHBURY:

• “ROTHBURY: Festival Also Sets Sights on Food and Waste”
• “Win ROTHBURY Tickets”
• “Winner Announced: What is Right/What is Wrong with the Environmental Movement Today?”

Photos: 1. Mike Gordon and Trey Anastasio of Phish - Michael Weintraub; 2. John Bell of Widespread Panic - Tim Hurst; 3. Sherwood Forest by Day - C. Taylor Crothers; 4. Sherwood Forest by Night - C. Taylor Crothers.

I used quotes and capital letters to emphasize a point - I recognize that there are individual people concerned about the environment who have a more open mind and are willing to accept the notion that nuclear power has a place at the table in any discussion about our reduced carbon energy future. The officially recognized groups and spokesmen for The Movement seem unimpressed and continue to firmly oppose nuclear development. The remaining arguments end up being cost, waste and nuclear weapons.

Cost is an issue for another day, but the arguments against nuclear power on the matter of waste and relationship to nuclear weapons rest on shaky ground that is beginning to give way. More and more people, including some in responsible leadership positions, are beginning to realize that the tired arguments originated in the 1970s no longer apply. They actually never did.

There are about 55,000 tons of used nuclear fuel resting quietly in cooling pools and dry storage containers on the sites where the fuel was initially used. That may sound like a large amount, but compared to the fact that a single 1000 MWe coal fired power plant can release 45,000 tons of waste to the atmosphere every single day, 55,000 tons of used material after 50 years of nuclear plant operation seems vanishingly small.

You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided calling that slightly used material “waste”. Unlike the gases, ash and soot released to our common atmosphere from coal, oil, gas and biomass fired power plants, the materials left over from nuclear fission reactors are sealed in corrosion resistant cladding and look a lot like they did when they first entered the reactor. Inside those tubes, the material is still mostly solid uranium dioxide - only about 4-5% of the initial material has been converted into other elements.

Essentially all of the remainders from nuclear plant operation could be recovered and reused; some of it would best be used as feedstock for future reactors, other parts should be segregated and used in other material applications for long life batteries, catalysts, and irradiation source materials.

Both of the remaining US presidential candidates seem to be open to the idea that used fuel should be recycled and reused. That is a welcome position since it looks like there will be a number of new reactors under construction soon and they will provide a ready market for the recycled fuel. There will need to be a bipartisan effort to establish rules that do not change with political winds, however, before private industry will invest in the system.

ALL of the used fuel has been carefully stored away in a form that is easy to control and easy to keep segregated. It does not take up much space, does not cost much to watch (compared to the heat value that it provided), and it has never hurt anyone because the people that watch it understand the simple concepts of time, distance and shielding.

As a life time procrastinator, I am actually encouraged by the fact that while we continue to debate and pontificate about the pros and cons of long term disposal, the natural process of radioactive decay continues to make the fuel easier and easier to handle. That process can reduce the cost of recycling, when we finally get around to it.

Perhaps those of us who are advocates of the increased use of nuclear energy as a clean, emissions free source of reliable, low cost power should thank the people who have prevented the used fuel from being too hastily moved or recycled.

Not only do we have a growing volume of seasoned raw materials, but when we finally do get around to building facilities, we can do so using up to date methods and the lessons learned from the first generation facilities in other countries. The democratic process really does favor the patient.

Related posts

US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy
Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030
What Do You Do About the Waste? Recycle and Reuse.

Yes, this is a reader poll, and it is not a statistical representation of the public attitude of any country in particular. But it is striking that the 133 readers who did vote, were all doing so from a blog network called Green Options. Get it? Simply put, the public attitude towards nuclear power has undergone a seismic shift in recent years. This evidence indicates that this is not the same environmental movement that emerged in the early 1970’s.

But as consumed as I am with energy issues and the politics that surround them, I remain somewhat agnostic about nuclear power. Why is that? There’s no simple answer. Part of it is not wanting to reconcile the tensions between nuclear power as a low-carbon alternative with the ecological dangers of mining uranium and the big issue of transporting and storing nuclear waste. [If you want to know more about the specific dangers and problems facing nuclear power, Judith Lewis has written an excellent article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones addressing these issues in great depth.]

I would also argue that the reason I (and many other greens my age) are not particularly averse to nuclear power is because the pressing environmental issues that were building blocks to my own environmentalism were generally not related to nukes.

Read more of this story »

As a dual citizen of both the Earth and Mother Africa, I am inclined to think that 2008 AD should have heralded a better world for every single human being. But, sadly, that is not so. Earth Day 2008 will be a celebration of the ugly in Africa.

For we cannot justify the fact that majority of the world’s poor are Africans, surviving on less that US$ 1 a day, living in gigantic slum neighborhoods awash with tons and tons of filth, without adequate clean water, and without access to basic health care. A great irony for a continent so richly endowed with natural resources.

Read more of this story »

Over 40% of Korean men smoke. And this is the good news. Before the recent wellbeing trend, the number was almost 60%. Smoking seems less common among Korean women.

2. When you eat cow you call it cow. Give yourself 1 point.

Koreans love meat and the don’t mince words when talking about it. You’re not eating “steak” and “prosciutto;” you’re eating “cow” and “pig.” Especially popular are variations on galbi, which ranges from Korean BBQ to stir-fried meat and hot peppers. There are, however, a modicum of vegetarian and even vegan restaurants in Korea.

3. You ride the bus and the train, but you still love Hyundai. Give yourself 2 points.

Read more of this story »

In the first week of February, we explored and compared methods of public transportation around the world.

This week, from February 18-24, we’d like to introduce a topic that’s a little more personal. How do people in different nations view the environment and environmentalists?

To help answer this question, our correspondents around the world will shed light on four areas:

• traditional cultural views: how different cultures see nature and the environment
• attitudes on the street: what the average person has to say about environmentalists
• levels of activism: how environmentally active people are in a particular country
• motivation: what local environmental issues are making people talk

Hopefully, over the course of the week, we will have a better appreciation of the emerging environmental consciousness around the world.

We also hope to bring you, our reader, eye to eye with people of many nationalities to explore what environmental issues motivate each of us to care and inspire us to take action.

As always, please freely contribute your thoughts and observations as we explore attitudes toward the environment and environmentalists around the world.