View Single Post
Old 09-07-2019, 03:32 AM
Deeg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Meh. While I don't agree with fellow Democrats who refuse to consider shifting energy resources more towards nuclear power in response to climate change, I'm not convinced that Warren as President would actually be in that camp. I also think that, given the currently declining role of nuclear in US power generation and the slack being picked up by growth in renewables and demand reduction, candidates may be hoping that continuing trends will by early 2021 have solved a good chunk of this problem for them.
Your response indicates that drastically reducing CO2 emissions is not important to you. Renewables will reduce carbon emissions but they won't come close to eliminating them. You also seem to think that Warren is a bit of a liar.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
To be fair, when the best thing you can say about your party's position is "not everyone in the party is a climate denialist who is doing everything they can to increase our emissions, just the president, senate majority leader, and virtually everyone in any position of power", it makes sense to reach for bullshit whataboutisms. That is, if your goal is to minimize your own culpability, rather than actually do something. I mean, for fuck's sake, how hard is it to read this sentence:
Future generations are going to blame everybody: the conservatives for denying the problem and the liberals for denying the best solution.
...and realize that, even if we take you entirely at your word that nuclear power is undeniably and unrefutably the "best solution", these are not equivalent positions?
You're right, that are not equivalent positions; in some ways the liberals are worse. They KNOW how dire GW/CC and they STILL dicker around (see Kimstu's response above). In the end, however, they lead to an equivalent result: not enough action on reducing CO2.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
It's a distraction, a whataboutism to try to say, "Sure, republicans are bad on climate, but democrats are too!" Treating the question of "should we expand nuclear to solve climate change" as though it's anywhere near as crucial or as resolved as "should we do something about climate change". Which, for the record, it isn't:
Maybe yes, but maybe no, two university energy experts say. They point not only to high construction costs but also to long lead times before on-the-drawing-board “new nukes” could really go commercial. They point to the pros and cons of keeping aging nuclear power plants on the job: “If we shut them down and replace them with natural gas,” says climate change expert (and Yale Climate Connections contributor) Zeke Hausfather, “that’s a disaster from a climate perspective.”

A nuclear power representative at one point in the video recalls often being asked by eager would-be customers, “Can we have it ready in six months?” Her reply: Think a decade or more, more like at least 15 years.

Given that a new nuclear power plant getting underway today is unlikely to come online, on average, until around 2033, those seeing nukes as a silver bullet are engaging in “a complete boondoggle and a waste of money,” Stanford’s Mark Jacobson says.
A solution that won't go online until the 2030s is a bit rough given the timescales we're working with.

I will concede that opposition to nuclear power is not a good look. But let's not mince words - this is not a useful contribution to discussion about climate change. This is a right-wing wedge issue, used to try to minimize their own culpability. Don't fall for it.
I entirely disagree. Let's got back 20 years ago, when GW first started to become a serious topic, and picture two scenarios:

1) Republicans get on board and agree to CO2 reductions but Democrats continue to oppose nuclear power.

2) Republicans deny the problem but Democrats fully support nuclear power.

In which of those two scenarios do we end up with lower CO2 emissions in 2019? I contend that it's #2 and the future looks even better with electric vehicles around the corner. We'd have multiple power plants on-line with more coming. The US would be a world leader in carbon-free energy production and we'd have a clear path to drastically reducing CO2 levels, maybe even eliminating them. Fracking never becomes a thing. Liberals are part of the problem. The best scenario, of course, would be a combination of #1 and #2.

I consider the OP dangerous and very hurtful to reducing CO2. It allows liberals to point and laugh at how dumb those knuckle-dragging conservatives are and blame them--which is exactly what you are doing--so they can avoid the hard decisions on their own side. Even now you'd rather blame inaction on Republicans instead of supporting nuclear power (it's so far away!).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not letting conservatives off the hook. Their denials are head-slapping stupid and they voted for a moron who claims GW is a Chinese hoax. However, there aren't many conservatives on the Dope for me to preach at.