文章 Articles

For Brand, a new shade of green

American “techno-hippy” Stewart Brand says a shift to nuclear power and genetically modified foods is needed to address global warming. He explains his controversial change of position to Damian Carrington.

Article image

Stewart Brand appears to have squeezed many lives into his 71 years and defies easy categorisation, though “techno-hippy” comes close. A central figure of the LSD-infused counterculture in 1960s California, he put on the Trips Festival starring the Grateful Dead, while his Whole Earth Catalog – a shopping directory for hippies of clothes, books, tools, seeds and other things useful for a sustainable lifestyle – sold millions, with the slogan "We are as gods, so we might as well get good at it."

Brand also co-founded one of the earliest online communities – The WELL – in 1985. But while he describes himself as an avowed environmentalist, his latest book – Whole Earth Discipline – is controversial among greens, suggesting civilisation will be saved from global warming by densely populated cities, nuclear energy, genetically modified (GM) food and planet-wide geoengineering.

Damian Carrington: The vision you set out to save human civilisation from climate change is likely to be anathema to many environmentalists. What led you to this point?

Stewart Brand: Several things. Transgenic crops, because I trained as a biologist half a century ago, have never been a particularly great worry to me. And as I looked into the damage caused by the environmental resistance to GM … that became a subject in the book.

There's so much going on in biology, biotechnology, synthetic biology and so on that puts a lot of ancient issues into perspective. I want to prepare the way, not to make the same mistakes in the future that I think we have done in the past about biotech and environmentalism.

Nuclear was a switch. I had been somewhat against it. I'm so strongly for it now that even if climate change wasn't an issue, I'd still be pushing it.

DC: What made you change your mind?

SB: Primarily climate. Nuclear produces almost zero greenhouse gas. Coal is the principal villain right now. We'd looked at it mainly in terms of what it did to the landscape, in the United States especially, where we've turned the Appalachian mountain ranges upside down and dumped the tops in the creeks. That's been a strong green issue for a long time, and needs to be even stronger. But we hadn't really looked at the waste stream coming out of coal, especially compared with the waste stream coming out of nuclear. And that contrast is what started to drive me to look more closely at nuclear and realise that I had been misled on many of the specifics.

As for cities ... at least in the US, greens had been leaning towards pushing what they call compactness in cities for a while, mainly as a counter to trying to fight sprawl. It's not a big jump for them to go another step and realise that dense cities are actually good across the board.

Geoengineering is interesting. I was at a meeting in Washington DC [recently] with State Department and Congress people and whatnot, as well as environmentalists. And one strong research initiative under way now includes the Environmental Defense Fund as one of the participants. Well, that's amazing – [the idea] that environmentalists are either non-committal about geoengineering or trying to participate in the early discussions about it. The knee-jerk "Don't mess around with Mother Nature" response is not there.

DC: Why is that?

SB: Time has passed. Environmentalists have been thinking about global warming for longer than most and so we've got used to the idea that mitigation, cutting back on greenhouse gases, is taking way longer than expected and, in fact, may not occur at all for decades. And therefore there needs to be a plan B. If you go to some kind of climate engineering, you don't want to do it half-baked; you want to know what you're doing – and that requires research at scale, which hasn't occurred yet.

DC: Isn't humanity's track record with technology the worry?

SB: I think actually our track record with technology is pretty good. I want greens in particular – and everybody in general – stepping up to close engagement with technology in all its forms. If technology is forging ahead, I'd love to see everybody concerned about its impact on social and natural systems to get right into the thick of it – to make sure technology opens up more options for doing good things in the future. And because technology moves rapidly, that's actually a relatively easy thing to do. Use good tech to undo the harm of bad tech.

DC: Is the energy and enthusiasm among environmentalists comparable with what it was in the ’60s?

SB: Comparable energy and a drastic amount more sophistication and capability. One reason I produced the Whole Earth Catalog was to be of use to hundreds of communes starting up in the States – manned by college dropouts who didn't have the faintest idea how to nail boards together or how to make a garden grow. All those kind of fundamental skills were [covered] in the catalogue. It turned out that not just people in communes were interested, a lot of people were. But those levels of naive ignorance – which we hippies specialised in – have passed.

We can still party and the people who wanted to party that way are getting better at it. But the people who wanted to reinvent the tools of civilisation ... they have gotten drastically better at that.

DC: I noticed that you refer to environmentalists as other people. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

SB: Absolutely balls to the wall and pedal to the metal. I have been all my life.


Copyright © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

Do you agree with Stewart Brand? Given the impacts of climate change, should the world be taking another look at nuclear power plants? Is nuclear an acceptable alternative to dirty coal, or a risk too far? What about geoengineering? Genetically modified foods? Should we “mess with Mother Nature” at all? Can “good tech” undo the harm of “bad tech”?  Let us know on the forum.

Homepage image from frontiersofinteraction

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar




大量的食物早就足以满足全人类的需求(尤其是非肉类的蛋白质)——但是这样的形式无法使得贪婪的食品工业获利。贪婪正在毁灭食物供给系统——尤其是鱼类。大多数妇女都会因为宗教或者伴侣的要求而限制生育的孩子—— 这不应该被认为是一个禁忌话题 。


Less is more; quality not quantity

The questions asked are largely superfluous.

Reducing consumption would be safer, cheaper and more effective than tinkering with nature.

Ample food is already available to feed the human population (particularly as non-meat protein) – but not in forms most profitable to the food industry. Greed is destroying life support systems – particularly fish. Most women would limit the number of children they have if encouraged to do so by their religion or menfolk – this should not be regarded as a taboo subject.

Nuclear power plants should be built in cities - those who crave electricity must accept the risks of a Chernobyl or terrorist attack. The impact of radiation is not global, that of soot and greenhouse gas emissions is - making nuclear preferable to coal, whatever the price. Distribution losses need to be reduced and smart, local grids should be implemented before building further power plants. Punitive taxes should be levied on products whose life-cycles are more carbon intensive than the nor。m for alternatives. Prices should be allowed to rise to help reduce consumption and to pay for the cost of nuclear or other carbon-free technology – government subsidies should cease.

Thumb original dscf0479 1



What is good tech?

“Use good tech to undo the harm of bad tech.” Who decides which tech is good and which is bad? If supporters of something always think that objectors oppose it because of ignorance, how can they communicate? What level of risk should we be prepared to accept?

Default thumb avatar





Saving a genetically modified “future” with nuclear power

The United States is a country with freedom of expression, a difficult concept to grasp for Chinese people without such a culture.

This fellow isn’t young anymore but still spouts nonsense, so-called American pragmatism.

I’m not worried about his nonsense, but in some developing countries, silence prevails when things are actually bustling, and indications are that nuclear power will soon prevail in these places, reaching a level of 80 million kilowatts of installed capacity. On the 25th anniversary of the nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl, the “ignorant and fearful” pay tribute. Amen.

Default thumb avatar



rescuing or ruining

Nuclear power and Transgenosis are like two ghosts generating human desires, which would sprint without regulation. They are able to exterminate both human beings and the earth. Environmentalists without morals are not real protectors.