Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:58 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,629
I haven't watched/listened to her speech (aside from some short clips on the news) because I don't need her to tell me things I already know, nor do I need to get my emotions heightened on this issue. As a person who is often cynical about emotional appeals but who believes in the issue very much, I tend to try and avoid diving into the morass of evaluating "how accurate was emotional appeal X".

That said, I take issue with two of the OP's points.

First, the argument that a person speaking from a position of privilege, or who uses their privilege to address larger issues in which they themselves might be complicit is automatically a hypocrite is a poisoning of the well and a logically broken position.

Second, the idea that the best course was/is nuclear energy shows a massive lack of imagination. I'm not going to step into the should we/shouldn't we argument (I'm fairly inexpert and agnostic about it, frankly), but nuclear power wasn't going to, on its own, solve climate crisis then, and it certainly isn't now.
  #52  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:14 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Scared, angry child is not an appeal to rationality, it's an emotional appeal.

The single most damaging blow against the environment has been the emotion, not science based, opposition to nuclear power, we've had the technology to move past the use of fossil fuels for more than half a century but that next, absolutely necessary, step was thwarted by another set of scared, angry people armed with emotional appeals.

I'd say is time to stop listening to angry, scared people, they'd screwed us all up enough already.
But, enough about the current commander in Chief.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...eighs-rollback

http://theconversation.com/donald-tr...-hubris-118099
  #53  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:37 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Second, the idea that the best course was/is nuclear energy shows a massive lack of imagination. I'm not going to step into the should we/shouldn't we argument (I'm fairly inexpert and agnostic about it, frankly), but nuclear power wasn't going to, on its own, solve climate crisis then, and it certainly isn't now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Which is why we aren't going to do anything much about climate change. A Swedish teenager gives an impassioned speech about the failures of global leadership to address the issue. And the same people who claim that it is immediate and pressing and vital
  1. Reject the only remotely practical solution in favor of unspecified imaginative solutions, and
  2. Change the subject back to bashing Trump.

Regards,
Shodan
  #54  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:49 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
It's also not very persuasive to say that greater use of nuclear power would enable us to "take a major bite out of CO2 emissions" without examining just how "major" that "bite" would be. Take your example of France, which has always been much more active in promoting and using nuclear power and which has had substantially lower carbon impacts from energy generation as a result. Well, France is still above the global average in emissions levels, is still facing a reversal of their previous emissions-level decline, and is still producing large amounts of emissions in their non-nuclear-friendly transportation sector (which is an even bigger emissions contributor in the US than in the comparatively small and densely populated France).
That's true...they are above average in emissions globally, though mainly it's not on the production side but on the transport side as you indicated (they have over 35 million cars on their roads and their logistics transport relies heavily on fossil fuels use). But let's put that number into some context. Here is the top 20 list of emitters of CO2. What I want to draw attention too is the difference between France and Germany, as they are pretty similar. Except one thing of course....one of them has focused on nuclear, one has gone the other way.

Now consider...if WE had that percentage of nuclear (about 70%), what that would mean with respect to our own, huge emissions. Or if Germany did. Or if we AND Germany did. Or, better yet, if we and China did. Even if we had nothing else, we are talking nearly a 50% decrease in potential emissions from that alone. Now, tell me...how would that NOT make a difference?? Couple that with the potential rise today in AEV's that seem to be on the cusp of breaking out and you are talking about real, substantial differences. This isn't pie in the sky.

Like I said, no use crying over spilled milk at this stage. It didn't happen. It's not going to happen either, not today, and not in 10 years...or 50 for that matter. We have to do what we can with what is realistic, and nuclear is a dead parrot. It's shuffled off this mortal coil, or is in the process of shuffling off. So, we have wind and solar and the potential, in a few decades perhaps, of large scale energy storage systems, or at least of peaker fossil fuel plants that can be in standby to ramp up as needed. Maybe there is potential for a new grid. And there is the promise, down the line, of AEV's replacing ICE fossil fuel burners. I could see a cross over of production in the next 10 or 20 years, where more AEV's are produced than ICE cars.

All of this is, sadly, going to take time. And there isn't much that the world leadership can do to speed that up substantially that they haven't already done. Europe, even the US is already subsidizing solar and wind. Hell, it's how I got my solar power system and battery for my house. It's what kick started the electric car production that has us on the verge of major breakthroughs. I think that some countries, like the US, could do more. Use the market to disincentive coal. Yeah, going to be politically a mixed bag, but it's something that is within the realm of do-able with the right leadership who isn't blowing smoke and sunshine up their bases collective asses while promising new jobs and a return to the good old days of the 50's.

Quote:
Trying to equate acknowledgement of the fact that higher greenhouse-gas levels and consequently higher temperature rises will most likely produce worse climate impacts with extremist forebodings "that we are all collectively doomed, that they will all die or civilization will fall" is just more of the exaggerated hysteria-accusation rhetoric that I'm getting so tired of.
Yeah, well, I'm sick and tired of folks who are doing just that, though you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a theme we've been hearing for years. It IS freaking hysteria. And, sorry, if you didn't see that all through the speech, as well as laced through nearly everything the left is saying about climate change. Good grief, we've had plenty of threads on this board where the posters were in full on 'we are all doomed' mode. It's hard for me to credit that you aren't aware of this, to be honest, which kind of makes me wonder at your 'I'm getting so tired of it' schtick.

Quote:
So is trying to equate any kind of accelerated emissions-reduction approach with disparaged (but unspecified) "draconian left wing stuff".
Horseshit. Have you READ the New Green Deal? Sorry, but...horseshit. This isn't about 'emissions-reduction'. I have no issue with emissions-reductions or mitigation strategies, in theory, depending on the devil in the details. But stuff like the New Green Deal ISN'T ABOUT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS...it's about social engineering using global climate change as an excuse. And that's the theme I seen in all of this stuff and laced throughout the speech referred to in the OP. It's also why I call bullshit on the meme that 'global leadership' hasn't done what they should or could have done. To me, the reduction of that is 'free citizens who are really at fault for electing the wrong people don't know what's good for them, so we should take charge and do whatever we need to to fix this existential crisis for them by fiat'.

If it were actually about all this draconian stuff being on the table to REALLY reduce emissions then nuclear would be at the top of the list of things we could have and should have been doing. But it isn't. Because emissions aren't the only or even the primary objective, IMHO. When I DO see that I'll know that at least one side is actually taking this as seriously as it really is. Just like when I see Republicans talk about banning coal and coal plants and mandating their decommissioning (oh, and seriously talk about nuclear) I'll know they are starting to take this seriously. I'm not holding my breath for either.

Which is why I think we have to work within what's realistic and do-able wrt lowering emissions. Solar and wind with some sort of backup, electric vehicles replacing ICE fossil fuel ones, more efficient energy grids and houses/factors/buildings, more efficient and less CO2 intensive manufacturing and agriculture. There are plenty of things we can and are already doing. And continue to look for pie in the sky solutions for removing CO2 (we need to consider the effects on ocean acidity as well), as well as stuff like fusion or other more exotic solutions, maybe planetary engineering. These aren't going to save us from ourselves in the short or medium term, but still worth while to look at as possibilities down the road.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #55  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:50 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which is why we aren't going to do anything much about climate change. A Swedish teenager gives an impassioned speech about the failures of global leadership to address the issue. And the same people who claim that it is immediate and pressing and vital
  1. Reject the only remotely practical solution in favor of unspecified imaginative solutions, and
  2. Change the subject back to bashing Trump.

Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, but in reality you are trying to distract from the main issue: The Swedish teenager is pointing specially at Trump's lack of leadership, and dumb dragging.

And speaking of practical solutions, Trump is all talk, he is more busy wasting money on walls when with his power he could tell the military to, lets say, make new standardized nuclear small energy plants in already in place military installations or bases, plants that can be added to the grid later when the need does arise. His deadly ignorance only tells him to not see this as an emergency and that is where we are, that other politicians claim to dislike nuclear is a problem too, but less so than being led by a ignoramus.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-24-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #56  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:55 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which is why we aren't going to do anything much about climate change. A Swedish teenager gives an impassioned speech about the failures of global leadership to address the issue. And the same people who claim that it is immediate and pressing and vital
  1. Reject the only remotely practical solution in favor of unspecified imaginative solutions, and
  2. Change the subject back to bashing Trump.

Regards,
Shodan
I'm not sure why you included me here. I have nothing to say about Trump in this thread, and I did not in any way reject nuclear power.

I just question the OP's assertion that it's the "only real viable option" (or, as you state, "the only remotely practical solution") for addressing climate change.

Nuclear may (or may not) have an important role to play in future energy needs, but it's not a magic bullet. Suggesting, as the OP did, that the only failure of leadership wrt climate change is not pushing nuclear development is myopic.
  #57  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Sorry, but in reality you are trying to distract from the main issue: The Swedish teenager is pointing specially at Trump's lack of leadership, and dumb dragging.

And speaking of practical solutions, Trump is all talk, he is more busy wasting money on walls when with his power he could tell the military to, lets say, make new standardized nuclear small energy plants in already in place military installations or bases, plants that can be added to the grid later when the need does arise.
See, I don't think her speech was aimed solely at Trump. If it was, then a couple of things. First, she shouldn't have been talking about 30 year time frames. Secondly, I agree...he is a big part of the problem, or at least he is a big symptom of the problem, in that a large percentage of the US electorate doesn't take this as seriously as it needs to be taken, and is in denial (about a lot of things). Like I said earlier, he's actually not only a dinosaur wrt climate change, but he's actually going against the market wrt coal.

And while the US is certainly important, if the rest of the world is waiting on us to fix the problem, they are going to be waiting a long time...a long time before we, as a people, get our collective shit together and agree it IS a problem, and what can, realistically, be done. So, a Swedish girl berating the US because it's not doing what she wants is, to me, a waste. Better to push for more of what COULD be done in her own neck of the woods. You aren't going to shift China, any more than the US. They are going to get there, eventually, but in their own time. The US is already on the path, and China...well, China is China. What they are doing are for other reasons than climate change, but if it has any sort of positive effect, well, it's all good, right?

One thing I've worried about though and maybe you could answer this (it's not part of the OP). What if China DOES seriously cut it's pollution from coal power production? Unlikely, I know, but what if they do? I've read a few things that talk about the fact that, contrary to what seems logical, all of the particulate matter from coal plants, while being seriously nasty and killing a lot of folks each year actually block some of the sunlight from hitting the earth then bounding back up to be caught by GhG. Is that correct? And what would the short term effect be? Would we actually get MORE trapped energy in the short term? Not that I don't think they should do it, but just curious if you want to take a swing at answering.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #58  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:26 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
See, I don't think her speech was aimed solely at Trump.
Thing is, it is thanks to Trump that it is the USA the only remaining nation that got out of the Paris Accords.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...w-what/545261/

[snip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
And while the US is certainly important, if the rest of the world is waiting on us to fix the problem, they are going to be waiting a long time...a long time before we, as a people, get our collective shit together and agree it IS a problem, and what can, realistically, be done. So, a Swedish girl berating the US because it's not doing what she wants is, to me, a waste. Better to push for more of what COULD be done in her own neck of the woods.
That is still a flawed logical argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You aren't going to shift China, any more than the US. They are going to get there, eventually, but in their own time. The US is already on the path, and China...well, China is China. What they are doing are for other reasons than climate change, but if it has any sort of positive effect, well, it's all good, right?

One thing I've worried about though and maybe you could answer this (it's not part of the OP). What if China DOES seriously cut it's pollution from coal power production? Unlikely, I know, but what if they do? I've read a few things that talk about the fact that, contrary to what seems logical, all of the particulate matter from coal plants, while being seriously nasty and killing a lot of folks each year actually block some of the sunlight from hitting the earth then bounding back up to be caught by GhG. Is that correct? And what would the short term effect be? Would we actually get MORE trapped energy in the short term? Not that I don't think they should do it, but just curious if you want to take a swing at answering.
For the reply I defer to Gavin A. Schmidt: climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-dimming/
Quote:
Does this all have either an implication for the global climate sensitivity (how much warming would result from a doubling of CO2) or the scenarios used by IPCC to project climate changes out to 2100? This is where I have to disagree most strongly with the commentary in the program. First, if we were trying to estimate climate sensitivity purely from the response over the 20th century, we would need to know a number of things quite exactly: chiefly the magnitude of all the relevant forcings. However, the uncertainties in the different aerosol effects in particular, preclude an accurate determination from the instrumental period alone. While it is true that, holding everything else equal, an increase in how much cooling was associated with aerosols would lead to an increase in the estimate of climate sensitivity, the error bars are too large for this to be much of a constraint. The estimate of 3+/-1 deg C (for doubled CO2) based on paleo-data and model studies is therefore still valid, even after this program.

Secondly, would a re-evaluation of the aerosol effect imply that projections to 2100 must be worse than previously suggested? If the climate sensitivity lies within the bounds considered in IPCC TAR (which I would argue is still the case), the answer is no. The most extreme scenario postulated in TAR (A1F1) already has a big reduction in sulphate aerosol forcing, and so the temperature changes by 2100 are almost purely a function of the GHG forcing. They are therefore unaffected by a re-evaluation of the aerosol indirect effect.

The suggested ‘doubling’ of the rate of warming in the future compared to even the most extreme scenario developed by IPCC is thus highly exaggerated. Supposed consequences such as the drying up of the Amazon Basin, melting of Greenland, and a North African climate regime coming to the UK, are simply extrapolations built upon these exaggerations. Whether these conclusions are actually a fair summary of what the scientists quoted in the program wanted to say is unknown. However, while these extreme notions might make good television, they do a dis-service to the science.
  #59  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:00 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Fighting climate change is difficult but not impossible. If success seems unlikely, does that mean we should give up?

America has done great things in the past: extended civil rights to blacks, saved Europe from Naziism, put a man on the moon. It seems too pessimistic to assert that America will never be able to do great things again.

I am tired of hearing that China is the problem, so the U.S. shouldn't bother with its own emissions. China now spends 0.9% of its GDP on renewable energy technologies. Compare that with U.S.A. which spends 0.1%. And despite that China's population is more than four times that of the U.S., the U.S. consumes far more petroleum than China. Even a paltry 50¢/gallon tax on gasoline might effect some change in America's profligate habits, yet almost half a century after first proposed, such a tax remains anathema.

Politically, who's to blame? Elected officials kowtow to voters; voters are misinformed, often deliberately. Recently Europe has done a much better job than America at instituting pro-environment and pro-humanity policies. This is no accident: among the world's advanced "democracies" it is the U.S.A. specifically where power has been turned over to kleptocrats and liars.

But a big reduction in CO2 emissions would be difficult in any event. There is one solution the world desperately needs. From a recent article:

I've emphasized an eye-catching quote from that article. The benefit of even modest population reduction would be so huge, that it was omitted from a graph comparing benefits. Ironic? The benefit of addressing population growth would be so huge that the graph would be "unbalanced" — all the other remedies would appear as faint lines down near zero! Therefore, so that line placement would seem to yield a more informative graph, the best remedy was ... omitted altogether!
Population reduction is a pretty serious topic. Who decides who gets to reproduce and at what rate?
  #60  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:16 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Population reduction is a pretty serious topic. Who decides who gets to reproduce and at what rate?
Applying for the job, are ya?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #61  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:29 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Thing is, it is thanks to Trump that it is the USA the only remaining nation that got out of the Paris Accords.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...w-what/545261/

[snip]


That is still a flawed logical argument.



For the reply I defer to Gavin A. Schmidt: climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-dimming/
Ok, so translating that article into XT speak, the answer is...no, it won't make any measurable difference. Right? That's good to know. Thanks for answer.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #62  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:35 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Population reduction is a pretty serious topic. Who decides who gets to reproduce and at what rate?
Greta Thunberg addressed her speech to global leaders - maybe them. China kinda has a head start on that, with the 'One Child Policy'. Not sure how it would work in the developing nations.

It appears that industrialization, with its associated reductions in child mortality and female education and employment, tends to reduce population growth sort of automatically. OTOH industrialization isn't what is being suggested, and it is going to be a heck of a lot harder to industrialize if cheap energy isn't available, and there are no current cheap energy sources available that will scale up to replace fossil fuels (apart from nuclear).

Which is much of the problem with Ms. Thunberg's speech - long on passion and rhetoric, rather short of practicalities. Certainly moral certitude is far from unheard of from the young. Things are simple when you're young and somebody else is paying the bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
See, I don't think her speech was aimed solely at Trump.
Thing is, it is thanks to Trump that it is the USA the only remaining nation that got out of the Paris Accords.
Thing is, her speech wasn't aimed solely at Trump.
Quote:
On 23 September 2019, Greta Thunberg addressed the assembled world leaders at the United Nations.[125]

At her appearance, Thunberg announced that she and 15 other children including Alexandria Villaseñor, Catarina Lorenzo, and Carl Smith were filing a lawsuit against five nations that are not on track to meet the emission reduction targets they committed to in their Paris Agreement pledges: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey.
Cite.

Regards,
Shodan
  #63  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:44 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Things are simple when you're young and somebody else is paying the bills.
Right now we aren't paying our own bills, so we are leaving that for her generation and those that follow to deal with, while they also have to live in the world we are leaving for them. Things are simple when you can just kick the can down the road and have the kids and grandkids clean up the mess.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #64  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:45 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Thing is, her speech wasn't aimed solely at Trump.
Cite.

Regards,
Shodan
You say that like if I would oppose the inclusion of others who are not doing enough.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-24-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #65  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:46 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Applying for the job, are ya?
No. The future is appearing dystopian enough without octopus as head of the eugenics department.

Seriously though, the talk of depopulation is something that is bound to be more controversial than anything I can think of. But.....
  #66  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:56 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,523
HD has made the assertion twice now that Greta Thunberg is rich: the original post and a subsequent quoting of that post, yet he has not offered a cite for that as requested in post #29.
  #67  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:02 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Seriously though, the talk of depopulation is something that is bound to be more controversial than anything I can think of. But.....
That's the advantage of being 16 - you can make these kinds of speeches, and it doesn't seem quite fair to talk too much about the implications of what she is saying.

Everyone can admire her passion, then you run up against the hard edge of "OK, what do we actually do about it?"

Like I said, she's 16 - "there's a crisis coming - do something!!!" looks like helping when you're 16. It's much of a piece with AOC's "just - pay for it" approach to governance.

Many problems are simple when you are not the one who has to fix them.

Regards,
Shodan
  #68  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:09 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's the advantage of being 16 - you can make these kinds of speeches, and it doesn't seem quite fair to talk too much about the implications of what she is saying.

Everyone can admire her passion, then you run up against the hard edge of "OK, what do we actually do about it?"

Like I said, she's 16 - "there's a crisis coming - do something!!!" looks like helping when you're 16. It's much of a piece with AOC's "just - pay for it" approach to governance.

Many problems are simple when you are not the one who has to fix them.

Regards,
Shodan
And many problems are "impossible" to fix when it would cost those in power something, and while they won't be around to live with the consequences of inaction. I call that the "fuck the grandkids" mindset.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #69  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
HD has made the assertion twice now that Greta Thunberg is rich: the original post and a subsequent quoting of that post, yet he has not offered a cite for that as requested in post #29.
I meant it as short-hand for this bit of the OP: "... she hit the birth lottery. Born in a 1st world country, in the golden age of our species, she has benefited from fossil fuels in every aspect of her life." I doubt she's a 1%er, but looking at her privileged position compared to the rest of history and humanity, she's probably not all that far off.
  #70  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:28 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,781
That is the weirdest ad hominem I've ever read.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #71  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:39 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Shows how little they have to attack her for, but attack her they must! Always gotta have someone to aim the right wing hate machine at.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #72  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
There have no doubt been some savage attacks on her in some corners of the internet. My noting her privilege would barely seem to register among them.
  #73  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:47 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,252
Here's how it works.

The extremely rich and powerful run things. They, in fact, pretty much always have. They run governments. Our Senate is the best example of this, but the other facets of government are also included. Acknowledging global warming caused by fossil fuels is unacceptable financially for them because the sun has one horrible and non correctable fault: you can't put a meter on it. To acknowledge global warming would be, to them, financial suicide. They just won't do it, which means the people they own in government won't do it, either. They will continue to call solid, basic science "rubbish".
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #74  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:50 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There have no doubt been some savage attacks on her in some corners of the internet. My noting her privilege would barely seem to register among them.
Yes some corners of the internet have some truly odious people that think its ok to bully and attack a 16 year old because they disagree with her, just like those same corners attacked teenage survivors of a school massacre that had just watched their friends die.

Are you saying that you have collected more vicious material to attack her with, but you are just holding back out of a sense of propriety? Please enlighten us with all of the excellent material there is out there to attack her with if you want, or you can just stick with insinuations like that one.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 09-24-2019 at 02:50 PM.
  #75  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:53 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There have no doubt been some savage attacks on her in some corners of the internet. My noting her privilege would barely seem to register among them.
Meh. It's also fairly pointless to point out when her audience is global leaders and power brokers whose standing and privilege likely outstrips that of a 16 year old girl.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #76  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
... Are you saying that you have collected more vicious material to attack her with, but you are just holding back out of a sense of propriety? Please enlighten us with all of the excellent material there is out there to attack her with if you want, or you can just stick with insinuations like that one.
I haven't "collected" anything of the sort, so I won't be enlightening you further on that matter. If you're interested, feel free to do your own research.
  #77  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:58 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I haven't "collected" anything of the sort, so I won't be enlightening you further on that matter. If you're interested, feel free to do your own research.
I wouldn't touch your "corners of the internet" with a 100 foot pole while wearing a hazmat suit.

You do seem to be quite aware of these "savage" attacks though. Seems weird to bring that up but then when clarification is requested to decline to elaborate. Almost as if just making the insinuation was enough for your purposes, whatever they may be, in saying that in the first place.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 09-24-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #78  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:59 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Meh. It's also fairly pointless to point out when her audience is global leaders and power brokers whose standing and privilege likely outstrips that of a 16 year old girl.
And here I thought that the fact that "her audience is global leaders and power brokers" is just another indication of her privilege.

You and I will almost certainly never be given the privilege of addressing an assembly of world leaders.
  #79  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:04 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And here I thought that the fact that "her audience is global leaders and power brokers" is just another indication of her privilege.

You and I will almost certainly never be given the privilege of addressing an assembly of world leaders.
Sounds like jealousy, and also an interesting use of the word privilege. I thought the right didn't think there was such a thing as privilege. Or is it only certain types of privilege that are supposed to not exist? Or does it only exist when you can use it as a political cudgel against someone you disagree with?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #80  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:12 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I wouldn't touch your "corners of the internet" with a 100 foot pole while wearing a hazmat suit.

You do seem to be quite aware of these "savage" attacks though. Seems weird to bring that up but then when clarification is requested to decline to elaborate. Almost as if just making the insinuation was enough for your purposes, whatever they may be, in saying that in the first place.
You seem to be intent on picking a pointless fight. Dial it back.

[/moderating]
  #81  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:14 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You seem to be intent on picking a pointless fight. Dial it back.

[/moderating]
I've said what I wanted to say, so no problem.

I was just curious about these savage attacks on Thunberg that were referred to from some corners of the internet. Seemed like a very strange thing to bring up and then refuse to clarify. I didn't think tossing out drive by insinuations was in line with the standards of Great Debates.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #82  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:32 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
That's true...they are above average in emissions globally, though mainly it's not on the production side but on the transport side as you indicated (they have over 35 million cars on their roads and their logistics transport relies heavily on fossil fuels use). But let's put that number into some context. Here is the top 20 list of emitters of CO2. What I want to draw attention too is the difference between France and Germany, as they are pretty similar. Except one thing of course....one of them has focused on nuclear, one has gone the other way.

Now consider...if WE had that percentage of nuclear (about 70%), what that would mean with respect to our own, huge emissions. Or if Germany did. Or if we AND Germany did. Or, better yet, if we and China did. Even if we had nothing else, we are talking nearly a 50% decrease in potential emissions from that alone.
Could you show your work on this calculation, please? I can't tell what assumptions you're making about percentage of nuclear power for energy generation versus percentage of energy-generation contribution to total greenhouse-gas emissions, or even which nation(s) you're making these assumptions for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
Yeah, well, I'm sick and tired of folks who are doing just that, though you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a theme we've been hearing for years. It IS freaking hysteria. And, sorry, if you didn't see that all through the speech, as well as laced through nearly everything the left is saying about climate change. Good grief, we've had plenty of threads on this board where the posters were in full on 'we are all doomed' mode.
Hmm, I'm supposed to look at a rational and factual 5-minute speech discussing realistic concerns about specific targets and thresholds regarding climate change and the evident inadequacy of existing policies to meet recommended targets, and somehow be able to "see all through" it some evidence of "freaking hysteria"?

Sorry, not buying it. I suspect that, like a lot of people, you just don't like hearing bad news and valid criticism, and feel a strong temptation to take it out on the messenger. Thunberg is absolutely correct that people are suffering and dying because of climate change, and will most likely continue to do so in greater numbers; that we're seeing the start of an anthropogenic mass extinction (although not a universal extinction or anything like it, which she never claimed); and that current policies are not projected to be able to meet the targets recommended for even a moderately disastrous impact on environments and economies.

That's not "hysteria"; that's realism. You don't like to hear it (who would?), so you filter it through a sort of mental extremism-amplifier so that what you hear is just people incontinently screaming "we are all doomed", which you can comfortably dismiss and ignore as "hysteria".

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
Horseshit. Have you READ the New Green Deal? Sorry, but...horseshit. This isn't about 'emissions-reduction'.
So I say that you and other "'hysteria'-hollerers" are reflexively trying to "equate any kind of accelerated emissions-reduction approach" with what you call "draconian left wing stuff" that's much more far-reaching, and you instantly jump to the example of a "left wing stuff" proposal that is explicitly much more far-reaching. In other words, you're proving my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
Solar and wind with some sort of backup, electric vehicles replacing ICE fossil fuel ones, more efficient energy grids and houses/factors/buildings, more efficient and less CO2 intensive manufacturing and agriculture. There are plenty of things we can and are already doing. And continue to look for pie in the sky solutions for removing CO2 (we need to consider the effects on ocean acidity as well), as well as stuff like fusion or other more exotic solutions, maybe planetary engineering. These aren't going to save us from ourselves in the short or medium term, but still worth while to look at as possibilities down the road.
It's true that we have to do these things. But it's also true that we have to be able to listen to someone realistically pointing out how insufficient they are likely to be, and how irresponsible it was for us older generations to have delayed so long in taking the problem seriously, without having a fit of the guilty-conscience vapors and automatically accusing her of "hysteria".
  #83  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:35 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I meant it as short-hand for this bit of the OP: "... she hit the birth lottery. Born in a 1st world country, in the golden age of our species, she has benefited from fossil fuels in every aspect of her life." I doubt she's a 1%er, but looking at her privileged position compared to the rest of history and humanity, she's probably not all that far off.
What a load of bullshit.
  #84  
Old 09-24-2019, 04:17 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And here I thought that the fact that "her audience is global leaders and power brokers" is just another indication of her privilege.

You and I will almost certainly never be given the privilege of addressing an assembly of world leaders.
Obviously you’ll need to try harder.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #85  
Old 09-24-2019, 04:47 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There have no doubt been some savage attacks on her in some corners of the internet.
And also broadcast on Fox News.
  #86  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:02 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,261
I like how rather than being a discussion of world leaders' responsibilities and capabilities regarding climate change, the discussion is about how the girl is just a terrible person for, like, all the reasons. How could anything she says be true? She's a bad person!
  #87  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:07 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
And also broadcast on Fox News.
Fox News apologized for one of the attacks, but there have been others:
Quote:
Fox News apologized Tuesday for pundit and Daily Wire podcast host Michael Knowles who, while appearing on The Story Monday night, called Thunberg a “mentally ill Swedish child.” [...]

Later in the evening, Fox host Laura Ingraham compared Thunberg’s appearance to that of the homicidal fundamentalist youths in Stephen King’s Children of the Corn.
(Response from Ingraham's brother: "Clearly my sister’s paycheck is more important than the world her three adopted kids will inherit. I can no longer apologize for a sibling who I no longer recognize.")

Quote:
Other conservative pundits like Dinesh D’Souza and Sebastian Gorka have compared her appearance to that of an Aryan ideal of youth propagandized in the Third Reich, and called her “brainwashed.”
Some other attacks on Thunberg in right-wing media:
Quote:
Stephen Miller: “Tase and arrest her.” [...]

Breitbart.com editor John Nolte: “I can’t tell if Greta needs a spanking or a psychological intervention … Probably both.” [And the just plain creepiness of a middle-aged man suggesting the "spanking" of a 16-year-old girl speaks for itself.] [...]

Conspiracy theorist website Infowars and Alex Jones: “Watch Greta Thunberg channel Hitler In Hate-Filled Rant.” [...]

Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza compared Thunberg to “Nordic white girls with braids and red cheeks” who “were often used in Nazi propaganda. An old Goebbels technique!” [...]

Far-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos shared an image on Telegram suggesting Thunberg has fetal alcohol syndrome. [...]

Turning Point USA’s Benny Johnson: Thunberg is an “annoying, foreign, communist propagandist.” [...]

Climate denier Steve Milloy: “Greta the Climate Puppet leads a twisted cult.”
Kinda funny to see all the "Nazi" denunciations on the grounds that Thunberg is a fair-skinned white girl with braids. So many right-wingers are always on about how the "white race" is so victimized by unfair accusations of "racism" and "Nazism" and so forth. But as soon as a "Nordic-looking" white person says political stuff they don't like, they start right in with the "Nazi" accusations themselves.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-24-2019 at 05:08 PM.
  #88  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Fox News apologized for one of the attacks, but there have been others:


(Response from Ingraham's brother: "Clearly my sister’s paycheck is more important than the world her three adopted kids will inherit. I can no longer apologize for a sibling who I no longer recognize.")



Some other attacks on Thunberg in right-wing media:


Kinda funny to see all the "Nazi" denunciations on the grounds that Thunberg is a fair-skinned white girl with braids. So many right-wingers are always on about how the "white race" is so victimized by unfair accusations of "racism" and "Nazism" and so forth. But as soon as a "Nordic-looking" white person says political stuff they don't like, they start right in with the "Nazi" accusations themselves.
It’s a shame scientific discussions have become so political. It’s also ugly to bully teens for their political views or apparel.
  #89  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:25 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Kinda funny to see all the "Nazi" denunciations on the grounds that Thunberg is a fair-skinned white girl with braids. So many right-wingers are always on about how the "white race" is so victimized by unfair accusations of "racism" and "Nazism" and so forth. But as soon as a "Nordic-looking" white person says political stuff they don't like, they start right in with the "Nazi" accusations themselves.
It's not funny even if they are hypocrites. All of those snippets (except possibly Johnson's) are disgusting ad hominem attacks that mock a child for features that she has no control over. If she has Asperger's syndrome that might mean she has very tough skin, but it doesn't make what they said okay.

~Max
  #90  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
... It’s also ugly to bully teens for their political views or apparel.
I wonder if any posters will make the connection between this and their posts about Nick Sandmann.
  #91  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:49 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It’s a shame scientific discussions have become so political.
Well, they wouldn't have to be if so many people didn't keep on trying to misrepresent and discredit valid science for political reasons. As BeepKillBeep quoted back in post #23, "Climate denialism isn't just a bunch of people who are wrong. It is a bunch of people being paid to be wrong on purpose to deliberately spread doubt about the truth."
  #92  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856

Moderating


Everyone please drop the hijack regarding any personal characteristics of Greta Thunberg. The content of her message, the merit or demerit of it is fair game. Discussion about any other personal characteristics of her is not. One, it's irrelevant to the message spoke about, and two, she's a child and even though she put herself in the public sphere by speaking out, that's not what this thread is about.

[/moderating]
  #93  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:16 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I meant it as short-hand for this bit of the OP: "... she hit the birth lottery. Born in a 1st world country, in the golden age of our species, she has benefited from fossil fuels in every aspect of her life." I doubt she's a 1%er, but looking at her privileged position compared to the rest of history and humanity, she's probably not all that far off.
And she's using her "privileged position" to raise concerns about the sort of life she is going to have in the future, and not telling poor Asian farmers "fuck you, get air conditioning."
Horrors.
  #94  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:56 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 653
Transnational corporations dominate the global economy, and global leaders (together with businesses, military forces, and households) are dependent on them for credit.

They need continuous growth of credit to thrive, and that means more use of material resources and energy worldwide. Most want the same because that's how their income, returns on investment, etc., grow.

Meanwhile, several of these corporations, together with others as well as military and intelligence groups, have been publishing reports for personnel and clients about the effects of not just global warming but also peak oil.
  #95  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:27 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Were she a very poor person living in a 3rd world country threatened by rising sea levels and the ramping up impact due to human caused climate change, THEN she'd have a case for the outrage and tears. Of course, then she wouldn't have access to all of the things that allowed her to step on the world stage in all her outrage.
So only a very poor person in imminent danger is allowed to be outraged; and no such person is in a position to express that outrage.

In which case, nobody can possibly effectively express outrage; and nothing will be done; at least, not until all the coastal cities in the rich countries are underwater. Or not then, because it can then be argued that the people in those cities -- or at least the ones in a position to "step on the world stage" -- will be able to afford to move elsewhere.

I think that's an outrageous argument.
  #96  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:28 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
So only a very poor person in imminent danger is allowed to be outraged; and no such person is in a position to express that outrage.
Again:

Rich people are not allowed to be outraged because they're wealthy and hypocritical.

Poor people are not allowed to be outraged because they don't pay taxes or understand the issues.

Middle-class people are not allowed to be outraged because it's disloyal and unappreciative to complain about your very adequate lifestyle.

Nobody is allowed to be outraged. You must accede to the situation, whatever it may be. Case closed.
  #97  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:33 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,629
Well, no wonder change doesn’t happen. The only people allowed to be angry are the people without power or privilege. Anyone in a position to meaningfully effect change is to privileged for their opinion to count.
  #98  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:13 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,567
XT, how sure are you that the absence of a robust nuclear infrastructure is the keystone to the demise of future generations? For instance, there was a time in this country when most major cities had cable car systems. Companies like Ford and Esso (Rockefeller's original oil company IIRC) didn't like that because it reduced consumption of personal cars and oil. They pulled strings and arranged to have those systems mostly ripped out. Have you considered how much more efficient robust public transportation would be? I know, that's Socialism, but think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Here's how it works.

The extremely rich and powerful run things. They, in fact, pretty much always have. They run governments. Our Senate is the best example of this, but the other facets of government are also included. Acknowledging global warming caused by fossil fuels is unacceptable financially for them because the sun has one horrible and non correctable fault: you can't put a meter on it. To acknowledge global warming would be, to them, financial suicide. They just won't do it, which means the people they own in government won't do it, either. They will continue to call solid, basic science "rubbish".
If that is really true, I am afraid the solution is to bring back the guillotine, on the basis of the universal right to self defense. Are we all supposed to stand idly by while a small claque of wealthy assholes ruins the lives of future generations? If rational argument can't work, and if emotional appeals by affected young girls doesn't work, tell me- is accepting that Nothing will work a viable option? We all just grab our ankles and kiss our asses goodbye because these wealthy destroyers need to spend a lifetime getting jerked off by teenagers and what have you?

Bringing back the guillotine and convincing the decision makers that they are absolutely, definitely next would have strong persuasive power for the argument that there are worse things than being a little less wealthy and powerful. Or, it would clear the way for decision makers who care about the human race. Bad for them, but win-win for the 7.5 billion rest of us.

Don't you think so? I hate to raise such a point, but if this set of people are Literally Killing Us All and nothing else whatsoever can reach them, do we all just meekly lay down and die and sacrifice our grandchildren to their avarice? Does humankind not have a right to defend itself?
  #99  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:34 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
XT, how sure are you that the absence of a robust nuclear infrastructure is the keystone to the demise of future generations?
Butting in again on this topic: While I reiterate that I think nuclear power probably does need to play a role in combating climate change, I'm getting more and more skeptical about the frequent claims that nuclear is our Immense Missed Opportunity That Would Have Made All the Difference.

This (quantitatively unsupported) attitude is reminding me of the OP of a concurrent GD thread on gun violence insisting that the right way to address mass shootings would be to keep the media from publishing the names of the shooters. The general pattern of such rhetoric seems to be:

1) Confront a problem that more and more people are getting concerned about, as they are becoming more and more receptive to serious regulatory action to address it;

2) Object to the proposed regulatory actions as in some way or another Going Too Far;

3) Pick out some more tangential action that the public didn't embrace in the past and is unlikely to embrace in the future, and claim (without adequate quantitative evidence) that this action would have had a huge positive effect on addressing the problem;

4) Lament the alleged shortsightedness of today's action-proposers who allegedly didn't do enough to promote your chosen action and thereby made us miss our big chance to solve the problem; and

5) Return to opposing the proposed regulatory actions to address the problem, with the comforting sensation of having successfully offloaded the blame for inaction onto somebody else.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-24-2019 at 10:38 PM.
  #100  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:20 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Cite? I personally think the importance of dealing with climate change supersedes even rational concerns about the undeniable problems with nuclear power, but AFAICT it's self-deluding bullshit to claim that "the single most damaging blow against the environment" has been opposition to nuclear power.

There are lots of significant reasons, not just environmentalist opposition and/or irrational fears, why nuclear power hasn't (and isn't likely to) solve all our complex problems with fossil-fuel dependence. Airily claiming that "we've had the technology to move past the use of fossil fuels" while ignoring all those other reasons is not convincing.

More and more these days, I'm seeing (both current and unacknowledged former) climate-change deniers trot out this unsupported and vague nuclear-power counterfactual as a way of deflecting blame for global-warming issues onto environmentalists and/or liberals. Just whine, without any persuasive supporting evidence, "Well we woulda got rid of all these bad emissions a long time ago if you liberals hadn't been so stupid about your no-nukes dogma!" and hey presto, all of a sudden you can tell yourself that it's all somebody else's fault and has nothing to do with your stubborn refusal to recognize the problem in time.
Energy is everything, the arc of human progress has always been propelled by the exploitation of ever more powerful sources of energy, everything built around us is literally built out of applied energy, for example I've heard Aluminium being described as "solid electricity" because its refining is essentially zapping ore to separate the metal from the rest. Energy used to gather resources, process them and distribute them; used to break down, reprocess and dispose or recycle those resources again.

Climate change is, at the moment, the single most pressing danger against the environment, it is caused, majorly, by burning fossil fuels to generate power.
The largest source of CO2 emissions comes from power generation,
-25% directly to power generation.
-21% from industry and from that "emissions from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy."
-14% from transportation and we know a large part of that could be substituted with energy produced without fossil fuels, i.e electric cars, buses and trains.

Nuclear power provides the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels as a source of energy (specially 40 or so years ago when activism against it began), it was, and is, the technology that would move us out of the use of fossil fuels as the primary source of energy and we've had it for over half a century, but it was kneecapped by scaremongering, non-science based propaganda.
It's available now, not a pie in the sky fusion promise, or renewable "solutions" that have proven to be counterproductive (case in point Germany). Again, it was available half a century ago and if it would had been allowed to fulfil its capabilities we would be in a much, much better situation than what we are in now, it didn't as a result of deliberate actions by people with an ideological axe to grind.

The impact humanity has had in the world has always been, specially since the Industrial Revolution, directly related to the extraction and use of power, when we gained the ability to use nuclear power we found a source of energy that far surpasses everything else in terms of environmental impact versus power output.

Therefore, by actively seeking to forbid the one source of energy that would have made the greatest impact in preventing global warming, that, right there, has been the single largest blow against the environment because, unlike the most important factor that impacts the environment, namely population numbers, it was done deliberately, hence a "blow", as in a deliberate action carried out on (largely ideological) purpose.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017