Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:51 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,805
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.
Given the privilege, I'd say, "please, listen to what Ms Thunberg is saying".
  #102  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:14 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Given the privilege, I'd say, "please, listen to what Ms Thunberg is saying".
Particularly as Ms Thunberg is saying "I am using my privilege to try to get you to listen to what the scientists are saying." I mean, she literally made the point that it's not important whether people listen to her as long as they actually listen to the scientific experts on the matter.
  #103  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:57 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
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.
The point is that anything we do to address AGW is going to cost poor people as much or more as it does rich people, rich countries, or those in power in either poor or rich countries. Solar and wind is more expensive than fossil fuels (or nuclear), so the increased cost of energy is going to hurt poor people. If we try to stop industrialization, the traditional path for developing nations is choked off and they don't develop. If we try to get away from fertilizer-intense agriculture, poor farmers can't raise as much food. If we push for bio-fuel, that raises the cost of food crops and that hurts poor people who need to buy food. If we make it illegal to have another child, people in poorer countries who tend to have more children are impacted more than people in rich countries who reduce their reproductive rates automatically. Poor people in SE Asia can't have air conditioning while we try to address the long-term causes of AGW, because that uses up fuel and contributes to AGW.

The notion that we aren't doing anything about AGW because it hurts those in power is way too narrow a view. It will cost a lot of money to address AGW, and money doesn't grow on trees.

Which, again, is what's wrong with Ms. Thunberg's speech. 'Global leaders are to blame' is both wrong, and counter-productive. It assumes that there are solutions that can be implemented if the leaders just decide they should be.

There aren't any easy, cheap, or politically viable solutions, and blaming 'global leaders' misses the point.

Fixing the blame instead of talking about practical solutions is why we aren't going to do much about AGW.

Solar and wind will not scale up, subsidies do not reduce cost, they shift them, we do not have batteries that can store energy on a practical level, China is the largest emitter of GHG and they ain't gonna stop, the world is not going to go vegan and give up cars, the Green New Deal failed in Congress without a single vote in its favor, and the Greens here and in Europe determinately change the subject and/or go into fainting fits when we try to implement nuclear.

I hope Ms. Thunberg feels better after her speech, because it isn't going to accomplish anything beyond that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #104  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:17 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
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? 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.


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?
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
  #105  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
This seems like a childishly simplistic view of history. Sure, some revolutions don't really change anything, or don't change things for the better, but some do.
  #106  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:23 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The notion that we aren't doing anything about AGW because it hurts those in power is way too narrow a view. It will cost a lot of money to address AGW, and money doesn't grow on trees.

Which, again, is what's wrong with Ms. Thunberg's speech. 'Global leaders are to blame' is both wrong, and counter-productive. It assumes that there are solutions that can be implemented if the leaders just decide they should be.

There aren't any easy, cheap, or politically viable solutions, and blaming 'global leaders' misses the point.

Fixing the blame instead of talking about practical solutions is why we aren't going to do much about AGW.
That is an amazingly defeatist attitude. So we just give up? It's all over? Because it's hard, we simply can't save ourselves or the planet? When did humanity get so feckless? We landed on the moon, we defeated global fascism, we've conquered deadly diseases. The history of our species is filled with amazing achievements, but all of a sudden now we are just totally incapable of solving a problem we know exists, and we know is a threat to us and to all life on the planet, but it's just too hard?

How do you think that sounds to today's youth? You are literally telling them, sorry kids, we are fucking up the place, but we don't want to have to sacrifice anything at all to try to fix it for you, so good luck!!

I thought we were better than this.
__________________
"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; 09-25-2019 at 08:24 AM.
  #107  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:26 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
So the American Revolution was a failure?

The French Revolution?

I think your understanding of the lessons of history is a bit lacking.
__________________
"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
  #108  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:11 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So the American Revolution was a failure?

The French Revolution?

I think your understanding of the lessons of history is a bit lacking.
Where in my post did you see the word “failure ?”

I clearly said the composition of who makes up the elites changes in times of revolution. Do you dispute that?
  #109  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:14 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So the American Revolution was a failure?

The French Revolution?

I think your understanding of the lessons of history is a bit lacking.
No doubt he slept through history class, but the American revolution isn't a good example because it was a reactionary revolution (rebellion by a certain elite for the purpose of retaining elite status). As was the American Civil War.

That's why American conservatives admire & defend these revolutions and disdain pretty much all the other ones.
  #110  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:36 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
That is an amazingly defeatist attitude. So we just give up? It's all over? Because it's hard, we simply can't save ourselves or the planet? When did humanity get so feckless? We landed on the moon, we defeated global fascism, we've conquered deadly diseases. The history of our species is filled with amazing achievements, but all of a sudden now we are just totally incapable of solving a problem we know exists, and we know is a threat to us and to all life on the planet, but it's just too hard?
We could do something. We could tell global leaders (like Sanders and Warren) and the Greens to "follow the science" just as much as we do, or Thunberg did, everyone else.
Quote:
How do you think that sounds to today's youth? You are literally telling them, sorry kids, we are fucking up the place, but we don't want to have to sacrifice anything at all to try to fix it for you, so good luck!!
No, we need to tell today's youth that the solutions that are practical are going to cost them. It is not going to be 'soak the rich' - China and the Third World are going to suffer as much, or more, than the rich countries, and that includes if we do something vs. if we don't.

Maybe we can save the planet, overall, and suffer less in the long term than if we just concentrated on remediating the effects as they occur. But that does not mean the short- and medium- and long-term solutions are not going to significantly impact the poor.

It's going to hurt. And it is going to hurt you. You have to deal with the drawbacks of nuclear waste. You have to deal with the toxic waste of the solar panel factories. You have to give up your car, or another child, or forgo the economic growth that results when we spend on higher cost energy sources instead of lower cost. Not just "the rich".

Maybe we are better than that. The question is more are you better than that, in that you will sacrifice, and especially concentrate on solutions, instead of focusing on the much more emotionally satisfying blame game.

Regards,
Shodan
  #111  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:51 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
I think you are putting a lot of words in my mouth, or you are making a general response on the issue while specifically addressing me?

I have no problem with the fact that society has to make some big changes if we really want to make things better for the future. I'm prepared to be just as much a part of the solution as everyone else will need to be. Our most important job as members of the human species is to do our part to leave the world a better place for those that come after us. If we do not do that we are dooming our own species out of selfishness.

Are *you* prepared? Are *you* willing?
__________________
"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
  #112  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:15 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
No doubt he slept through history class, but the American revolution isn't a good example because it was a reactionary revolution (rebellion by a certain elite for the purpose of retaining elite status). As was the American Civil War.

That's why American conservatives admire & defend these revolutions and disdain pretty much all the other ones.
Instead of yet another directly insulting post why not demonstrate the error in my post? Preferably with a quote that isn’t 1% of the post.
  #113  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:16 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I think you are putting a lot of words in my mouth, or you are making a general response on the issue while specifically addressing me?
I was addressing the idea that we are being prevented from doing "something" about AGW because it will hurt the rich. "Something" will hurt everybody, not just the rich. There are no solutions that will only hurt those I want to blame for the problem.
Quote:
Are *you* prepared? Are *you* willing?
Yes. Therefore, Sanders and Warren and Ocasio-Cortez and the Greens in the US and worldwide and Austria and Australia and Germany and Belgium and Denmark and Italy can go pound sand. Nuclear power is the way to go, and does not receive nearly the attention or commitment that it needs if the issue of AGW is to be addressed effectively.

Maybe I should take a boat and address the UN on the topic. It might help more than an appeal to emotion.

Regards,
Shodan
  #114  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:29 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Instead of yet another directly insulting post why not demonstrate the error in my post? Preferably with a quote that isn’t 1% of the post.
1% of the post? Literally your entire contribution in post #104 was this sentence:
Quote:
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
Don't expect me to bother disproving something that you didn't bother to prove. It's just an ignorant opinion that I suspect hinges largely on a bad understanding of history combined with weaseling around a uselessly broad definition of "elite".

Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
  #115  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:13 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 Try2B Comprehensive
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.
Well, the answer to this is...I never said it was, and I don't think it is. Really, it's...huh? I pretty clearly stated that we have to move forward without nuclear, and that I don't think it's going to destroy either our species, as a whole or our civilization, though it's going to be some rough times ahead for the next century or so. Demise of future generations isn't my schtick, it's the folks who are saying that global climate change is going to wipe us out or destroy our civilization. Personally, I don't think that's the case, though I think that poor nations and peoples are going to fair a lot worse than you, I or most in this thread...or most in Sweden, Canada, Germany, and most if not all of the 1st world nations.

Not sure what the point of the rest of that is in the paragraph. I don't think having cable cars would have or could have had the benefits that fossil fuels have had in the explosive growth of not just this nation but pretty much across the globe, or what that has to do with socialism or whatever, or what any of that has to do with nuclear or what I was saying. I honestly don't see the connection.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #116  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Yeah that was a weak point..

Of course it is then obligatory to point out how nuclear power became so prominent in France, it was by doing it in a way that made a good socialist proud. With education to the people and direct government intervention in the construction of the nuclear plants.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gs/french.html
Quote:
What is about French culture and politics that allowed them to succeed where most other countries have failed?

Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice."

Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of large, centrally managed technological projects. And, he says, they are popular. "French people like large projects. They like nuclear for the same reasons they like high speed trains and supersonic jets."

Part of their popularity comes from the fact that scientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic. According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread. "For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers and our scientists and we are confident in them."

Thirdly, he says, the French authorities have worked hard to get people to think of the benefits of nuclear energy as well as the risks. Glossy television advertising campaigns reinforce the link between nuclear power and the electricity that makes modern life possible. Nuclear plants solicit people to take tours--an offer that six million French people have taken up. Today, nuclear energy is an everyday thing in France.
I think Try2B Comprehensive is close to that argument, and I will have to say what I pointed before in a previous discussion: The current conservative party in the US would prefer to die before investing more in education and allowing mostly big government to build the big energy nuclear projects like the French did.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-25-2019 at 04:53 PM.
  #117  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:12 PM
Ale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This seems like a childishly simplistic view of history. Sure, some revolutions don't really change anything, or don't change things for the better, but some do.
Yeah, we wouldn't want childish simplistic thinking.

What was the thread about? Oh yes, people taking cues on how to solve a global, highly complex problem from a child.
  #118  
Old 09-26-2019, 04:23 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Yeah, we wouldn't want childish simplistic thinking.

What was the thread about? Oh yes, people taking cues on how to solve a global, highly complex problem from a child.
The "cues" she's giving are "look at the actual science and listen to the actual experts in the field". That seems like a pretty good first step to solving a global, highly complex problem.
  #119  
Old 09-26-2019, 05:11 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,010
The content of her message is simple and emotionally delivered but that is pretty much what you'd expect of a sixteen year old. Having read all the speeches she's given they are high on anger and emotion and low on concrete suggestions. She isn't a speaker of the calibre of Malala and she sounds like an angry teenager because she is, I don't think she is deserving of any scorn or insult at all for that. I'm just not sure what she says has any real substance to it outside of the volume and publicity it generates. The end point of all of this is practical action and all the anger and outrage generated is not a substitute for that.

There is the novelty value of a young girl getting angry at world leaders and building up popular momentum but I'm really not sure how that helps move us to do the right things. It may lead us to do something sure but not necessarily the right things, and potentially some counterproductive things.

I thought it was rather depressing that she was encouraged in her sailing stunt. Something that was far more environmentally damaging than actually just taking a flight or organising a container ship journey, or organising telepresence. It superficially looked like it was the right thing to do but I don't think taking a ride on a millionaire's sailing yacht is a particularly good look for an environmental figurehead. I don't think such such things ultimately help the environmental cause because they perpetuate such superficiality of thought. It made a point, but ignored a more powerful one that things are more complicated than they appear at first glance.

Not her fault, let me stress that. She's acting as a conduit for anger and despair and we can't expect to her to be particularly wise or incisive but others are and I hope that if she accomplishes anything it is to prepare the stage for those that do have the nuanced solutions but I do fear that what they have to say will not have the clarity of Greta's anger or appear as interesting or engaging now that we have basically had a schoolgirl call Trump a twat. (which, seeing as she can do little wrong at the moment she must be tempted to do)
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #120  
Old 09-26-2019, 05:23 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,072
For interest, here is a breakdown of the UK's power generation over the last 13 years:

Code:
	      Fossil fuels     Nuclear     Renewable	Other	    Total
Q1 2006     	75%	         19%	   4%	         2%          100%
Q1 2019    	44%	         14%	   33%	         8%	     100%
It's pretty good news. Fossil fuel use has fallen by more than a third and now accounts for less than half of energy use. The reason I bring it up is that this hasn't been done through nuclear - it too has fallen as a share of energy generation, although not by nearly as much. What has increased dramatically are renewables, which is almost entirely due to Wind and Solar (one category in the data).

Now, quite possibly, had we renewed our nuclear plants when we had a chance, we could have even lower fossil fuel use now. Just as possibly, nuclear would have crowded out the rise in renewables. But even so: while reducing our nuclear capacity, we have driven down fossil fuel use significantly, and are continuing to do so.

In fact, if you look here you can see that (at time of post) renewables are generating 42% of the UK's electricity demand: coal and oil are generating 0.0%

It's also worth noting that the cost of renewable energy in the UK is now below that of fossil fuels.

So good news - nuclear is good, but it's not the only viable solution.



NB, the percentages above are my calculations based on the terawatt hour figures given in the first link.
  #121  
Old 09-26-2019, 07:17 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
I really didn't think her speech was so complicated, but to people who want to shoot the messenger, and ignore the message, it seems it's still possible to mischaracterize what was said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
I don't think her childhood has been stolen. Not sure about her dreams, of course. Can't speak to that. But IMHO 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. There is no aspect of her stolen life that hasn't benefited hugely from humanities use of fossil fuels for the last 150 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. She's a rich girl, and now famous too. She'll almost certainly live a fine life and have very little to complain about
The point about her childhood being stolen came right after saying that right now she should be in school.
In other words, it's very obviously not saying she thinks she's materially worse off because of fossil fuels. Rolleyes.

It is saying that she feels she must dedicate much of her time, maybe the rest of her life, to this cause, instead of being in school, dating and whatever else.
Who knows, maybe she would have liked to have been a doctor or whatever, but instead she feels obligated to try to shame governments and the public into doing something about a growing threat that so many are complacent about.

Well done Greta, you're not just a very brave, intelligent, passionate 16-year old, but one of the bravest people I know, period. But I'm afraid things are only going to get harder going forwards. There will be many people that will do all that they can to attack you personally, and ignore the actual message.
  #122  
Old 09-26-2019, 07:49 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Well done Greta, you're not just a very brave, intelligent, passionate 16-year old, but one of the bravest people I know, period.
Really? I think you are interpreting the word "brave" in a different way to me and devaluing the term.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #123  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:30 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
What?
In my experience, most people get nervous about giving a speech even in a friendly environment of just a few colleagues or relatives.
You really don't think it takes bravery to stand in front of millions of people, including the world's leaders right in front of you, and including millions of people who are likely to be hostile to you personally?
Or is your position so entrenched, that you cannot even say one positive word about this girl, even if it means fighting the English language and all common sense?

Last edited by Mijin; 09-26-2019 at 08:31 AM.
  #124  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:42 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
Cite? Or perhaps write a very brief essay on how your observation applies to, for example, the Revolution of 1776. In the essay, discuss the fact that after the Revolution the U.S.A. had, for many decades, an unprecedented low level of income inequality, as estimated by economic historians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
There are policies that could make a difference but at the expense of deliberate, strategic self-handicapping what nation can afford to unilaterally make enact them?
Who spoke of "unilateral"? It's only a first step, but Google "Paris Agreement (Accord de Paris)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Population reduction is a pretty serious topic. Who decides who gets to reproduce and at what rate?
Start a new thread if you have a sincere interest in this difficult topic. If, OTOH, your thesis is "Anything difficult is also impossible," start a thread asking for counterexamples.
  #125  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:52 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The point is that anything we do to address AGW is going to cost poor people as much or more as it does rich people, rich countries, or those in power in either poor or rich countries.
And not doing anything to address AGW is going to cost poor people as much or more than it does rich people. In many cases, it may cost them their lives.

ETA: the solution to that, to the extent that there is a solution, is for richer areas to assist the poorer areas. The richer areas got richer in large part by messing up the place, and quite reasonably should pay more to try to fix it. Is that going to impact you and me and a lot of people who don't think they're rich? Sure; but so will continuing merrily along a road that's headed off a cliff.

Last edited by thorny locust; 09-26-2019 at 08:54 AM.
  #126  
Old 09-26-2019, 09:15 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
You really don't think it takes bravery to stand in front of millions of people, including the world's leaders right in front of you, and including millions of people who are likely to be hostile to you personally?
Sure, it can do. Some others take to it like to a duck to water and bravery doesn't come into it. I don't know which camp she falls in to. In any case I really don't think it makes her "one of the bravest people I know". I suspect we just set the bar a little differently.

I mentioned earlier another young woman, Malala Yousafzai, who I think is magnificently impressive and a great speaker, powerful, thoughtful and insightful, far beyond what I hear from Greta. She is exceptional and exceptionally brave. She has taken a bullet and lives with the ever-present risk of death from religious extremists.

Quote:
Or is your position so entrenched, that you cannot even say one positive word about this girl, even if it means fighting the English language and all common sense?
I'm neither positive nor negative on her, I don't have a position on her personally and really just concern myself with what benefit, if any, her activism brings. She and I are on the same side and I have no doubt she is honestly committed and driven. Her drive and commitment is admirable. Does that count as a positive?
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #127  
Old 09-26-2019, 09:49 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Sure, it can do. Some others take to it like to a duck to water and bravery doesn't come into it. I don't know which camp she falls in to.
When we talk about bravery, we normally just look at the action and consider it brave if it is something that would take bravery for most people. We don't try to second guess "oh, maybe it comes naturally for him?", why would we start doing that now.

Furthermore, i didn't just say it took bravery because of the fear of public speaking (and again, this is as public as it gets, many famous figures have confessed to throwing up before much smaller forums than this), but also hostility and even threats to her safety. If you think that's not bravery then i don't know what more i can say since i think you are not even being honest with yourself.


Quote:

I mentioned earlier another young woman, Malala Yousafzai, who I think is magnificently impressive and a great speaker, powerful, thoughtful and insightful, far beyond what I hear from Greta.
I think they are both brave. I don't see any need to compare them.


Quote:

I'm neither positive nor negative on her, I don't have a position on her personally and really just concern myself with what benefit, if any, her activism brings.
I think she is having a positive effect for 2 reasons:

1. We're talking about climate change again. I think a lot of people just tune out The UN is meeting about climate change again.

2. As mentioned, climate change deniers will often try to attack the man and not the message. A teenage girl is a slightly harder target. I've been surprised how many are still willing to hold their nose and proceed to the gutter, but I bet millions more are reluctant to do so or at least feel bad about it.
(This is not to say I think she's being used in any way. There is no evidence of that and she certainly appears to have a lot of internal drive. I'm just talking about the positives / negatives of someone so young becoming a figurehead)



Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #128  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:18 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
When we talk about bravery, we normally just look at the action and consider it brave if it is something that would take bravery for most people. We don't try to second guess "oh, maybe it comes naturally for him?", why would we start doing that now.
I think I probably do precisely that. An arachnophobe handling a little money spider is a far braver person that me handling a tarantula. A non-swimmer diving in to rescue a child would be a far braver person than I doing the same. Like I said, we are probably using the word in different ways.

Quote:
Furthermore, i didn't just say it took bravery because of the fear of public speaking (and again, this is as public as it gets, many famous figures have confessed to throwing up before much smaller forums than this), but also hostility and even threats to her safety. If you think that's not bravery then i don't know what more i can say since i think you are not even being honest with yourself.
OK, if she's in direct danger from what she says and still continues to do it then I'd agree that would be brave.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #129  
Old 09-26-2019, 11:31 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,719
For those that are opposed to Greta using her privilege (as a 16 year old girl? Bizarre), Australia wants to help you out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49P_ZGeWq8
  #130  
Old 09-26-2019, 12:09 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
For those that are opposed to Greta using her privilege (as a 16 year old girl? Bizarre), Australia wants to help you out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49P_ZGeWq8
"We understand that children acting like adults can make adults act like children." Heh.
  #131  
Old 09-26-2019, 12:30 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
An arachnophobe handling a little money spider is a far braver person that me handling a tarantula. A non-swimmer diving in to rescue a child would be a far braver person than I doing the same. Like I said, we are probably using the word in different ways.
Sure, and frankly I think I am using the word in the more standard way.

We cannot look inside people's heads and know whether they are scared or not. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume that if someone does something that the vast majority of people would find terrifying, that they also found it terrifying, and give them credit for that.

If she does this kind of speech many times in the future, sure I can start to speculate that maybe she's used to it and/or has unusual psychology, and ha no need for bravery.
  #132  
Old 09-26-2019, 12:44 PM
Taber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
History teaches that all a revolution does is change the members of the elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I clearly said the composition of who makes up the elites changes in times of revolution.
I would like to point out that the first quote does not say what the second quote says it says.
  #133  
Old 09-26-2019, 01:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
You really don't think it takes bravery to stand in front of millions of people, including the world's leaders right in front of you, and including millions of people who are likely to be hostile to you personally?
This is going to sound mean, but I thought Asperger's was doing the bravery for her. As I understand it people with Asperger syndrome have trouble interpreting facial expressions, understanding social cues, and changing topic. Bravery involves overcoming a challenge, such as the anxiety of public speaking. Due to her disorder, she may not mentally approach the state of anxiety associated with public speaking. If she never approached the challenge, let alone overcome it, I hesitate to call that bravery.

Her unusual focus on this single issue also appears to me to be a result of Asperger's. "Normal" children will not sit at home feeling sick and depressed and unable to eat for days because they must go to school instead of protesting climate change.

This isn't to say I take any ethos points away from Ms. Thunberg on account of her Asperger syndrome; I do not count that against her. I just do not give her credit in some places where I would have done so for a neurotypical child, and I am unpersuaded by some of her claims that would have been persuasive from the mouths of other children.

I invited the board to fight my ignorance before but nobody has taken me up, and I make the same request here.

~Max
  #134  
Old 09-26-2019, 01:32 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 308
This one is brave like the everyone gets a ribbon BRAVE! It takes bravery to stand up to our oppressors. It takes bravery to take on a job. It takes bravery to walk down the street. It takes bravery to cook dinner.

Novelty was right, the way you are using it, devalues the word.
  #135  
Old 09-26-2019, 01:51 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I invited the board to fight my ignorance before but nobody has taken me up, and I make the same request here.

~Max
I'm going to say no, and remind people of post #92:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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]
This also applies generally to bravery or lack thereof.

[/moderating]
  #136  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:35 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 653
Oil is so important that it is even used for renewable energy, e.g., mining, manufacturing, and shipping across thousands of km. But because of peak oil, more have to resort to other energy sources, all of which have low returns and quantity.

If the tipping point is above 300 ppm, then it is possible that even with lower fossil fuel use due to combinations of a resource crunch and financial collapse, the effects of global warming will continue for several decades.
  #137  
Old 09-26-2019, 09:57 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, the answer to this is...I never said it was, and I don't think it is. Really, it's...huh? I pretty clearly stated that we have to move forward without nuclear, and that I don't think it's going to destroy either our species, as a whole or our civilization, though it's going to be some rough times ahead for the next century or so. Demise of future generations isn't my schtick, it's the folks who are saying that global climate change is going to wipe us out or destroy our civilization. Personally, I don't think that's the case, though I think that poor nations and peoples are going to fair a lot worse than you, I or most in this thread...or most in Sweden, Canada, Germany, and most if not all of the 1st world nations.

Not sure what the point of the rest of that is in the paragraph. I don't think having cable cars would have or could have had the benefits that fossil fuels have had in the explosive growth of not just this nation but pretty much across the globe, or what that has to do with socialism or whatever, or what any of that has to do with nuclear or what I was saying. I honestly don't see the connection.
Let me just say that you are the only person I know who beats the nuclear drum, especially in a quasi-polemical way, like you do. I read your OP, I have read your posts previously in a similar vein about nuclear power, and now I am trying to digest it. My post was thinking out loud by typing. When I'm doing that, generally I make more sense as I go.

Some of the questions this thread has me confronting are 1. How to quantify the lost opportunity that is nuclear power? 2. Does the credit/blame really lie with liberals on this?

Thinking about #1 gets me thinking about other things that mitigate climate change to make a comparison. If I compare it to this country's lost opportunity wrt mass public transportation, it brings up what Jasmine was saying about the opposition of some private interests to solar power and addressing climate change in general. At one time we were moving towards widespread public mass transportation, but that basically got killed by auto and oil elites so they could sell more product. But everyone driving a personal car is a stinky, expensive, congested mess. There are more public benefits to public transportation than just being far lower in emissions. But to realize it, it may have to be literally over the dead bodies of the auto and oil elites. "It's not the government's role to enact such ambitious public works projects." "They're going to harm our businesses. The Evil Government, picking winners and losers. Socialist nightmare!" Well, the private interests got their way, there is only so much public transportation in this country, and the much vaunted but never acted on "infrastructure" issue languishes.

Kind of brings me to #2. Without having really studied it, I believe there was effectively an anti-nuclear propaganda campaign waged by... 'the Left'? 'Hippies'? 'Liberals'? I'm not sure how to peg it, 'environmental activists' is maybe the best I can do. Yup, some people did make a huge stink about the dangers of nuclear power. But are they the ones that really stopped it?

Because, consider: the same objection Jasmine's economic elites have to public transportation applies to nuclear power. It will undermine their business interests in coal, natural gas, that kind of thing. They have a powerful incentive to kill nuclear power. Maybe it was really them that did the deed? Because, consider: while a bunch of longhairs were smoking dope and making signs out of cardboard admonishing the government to basically ban nuclear power, there was no countervailing (and like you say, probably better grounded in empirical information) pro-nuclear propaganda campaign out of our government like what GIGO describes in France. If it is so clearly in the public interest, why not? Did the economic elites pull their strings to ensure the government shut their yaps? That's certainly happened in other cases, for example the GOP's climate change gag rules in Congress and elsewhere.

I'm just chewing on the thread. ISTM anything "public interest" these days gets branded "SOCIALISM", not because it actually is socialism but because it is bad for certain entrenched interests. These entrenched interests seem to have gone so far as to sabotage the economic stability of the United States by driving it ridiculously into debt, curtailing the government's ability to do much of anything big for reasons beyond rhetoric, ideology or private interest.

And that brings us to the young woman at the UN. She looked the world leaders in the eye and wanted to know, "Why have you idiots been such fuckups on climate change over the last 40 years? Even a kid can understand the issue. Can't you see that you are ruining the futures of me and my friends? Don't you care?" Thing is, the private interests have only been so successful. Most of the leaders at the UN were representing countries that do want to get serious about the issue, if maybe a little belatedly. It is this country that has the stupidest, most nakedly corrupted public policies.

Is it because government officials are themselves corrupt? Well, if they were self-sacrificing men of honor they would have taken the necessary steps to do what was necessary, even at the cost of their careers, and they'd have slept soundly at night under the overpasses with their cardboard pillows and their cat food and their barrel fires and those knit gloves with the fingers cut off, content in the knowledge that they did the right thing. Thing is, this kind of self-sacrifice is something you find in old stories that also include talking snakes, pillars of fire, people floating up into the air or being raised from the dead and so on, but not so much in the real world. Is it because these politicians are inherently more corrupt than other men? I don't really think so, I think they are more corrupted than corrupt.

By the economic elites. They make an offer that GOPers, at least, can't refuse. They corrupt our elections, they allow foreign countries to participate in their programme of snowing the public on every damn thing, and they make voting and democracy mostly meaningless by helping gerrymander their guys into power, who go on to weaken the government by burdening it with impossible debts, and also undermining its institutions, destroying our prestige by presenting us as the buffoon nation on the world stage with our stooge leader, and more.

What do you think- if democracy itself is corrupted, broken and ineffective, are we going to have to get out the guillotine? How long do you think we have left to decide? Please don't give me that, "It isn't going to be literally Armageddon so drop the hyperbole (and maybe the whole issue with it)" Climate change accelerates every year, and the future looks bleaker all the time. Can we accept not addressing it because a few captains of industry prefer it that way? Since the obvious answer is "no", what is it going to take, XT?
  #138  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:14 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 Try2B Comprehensive
Some of the questions this thread has me confronting are 1. How to quantify the lost opportunity that is nuclear power? 2. Does the credit/blame really lie with liberals on this?
Well, if you want my take on both of these, I'd say that the first one it depends on what you are defining as opportunity. I don't think that, no matter what, the US would ever have had 70+% of our energy production as nuclear. Even without all of the anti-nuclear interference and a public turned against nuclear at every opportunity, nuclear was and is expensive. It's a huge upfront capital investment, and doesn't make sense everywhere, regardless. In some regions, coal would have still happened because there is local availability and the threat of global warming wasn't as pervasive 30 years ago as it is today...such as it is, even today.

What I think is realistic is that we could have, today, say double the amount of nuclear as we currently have, and the nuclear energy industry could be a stable, if not growing part of our energy mix, perhaps with innovations and new, safer and smaller plant designs, making it potentially more affordable and scalable than the reality of what we have. So, what would it mean if we had, oh, say 40% of our energy coming from long term nuclear plants that were going to live through their full life cycle, instead of a slowly dying 20% of plants that almost certainly won't? I'd say that, alone, would have cut our CO2 emissions substantially. Couple that with just the rise in natural gas, pushing out coal, and I think we'd be well below any targets for GhG emissions that were set for us in Paris. Hell, we aren't THAT far off the targets NOW. Personally, I think we'd be in a really good place...a better place than we are today wrt needing to substantially lower CO2 emissions. And this leaves aside all the other unhealthy stuff that's happened because we've been burning so much coal for so long.

Obviously MMV...this is all just speculation, as we can't go back and change history.

As for the second part, I don't blame liberals, per se, for the mess we are in wrt nuclear. Or, I should say, I blame them as much as conservatives on this, as conservatives haven't exactly been pushing for nuclear the whole time. On both their parts it's more apathy (broadly, wrt the groups as a whole, not individually) than active undercutting. Who I DO blame is the anti-nuclear groups, which I basically associate with more radical left wing organizations. Those groups, who generated fear and systematic opposition are the ones who screwed us (not just in the US), and have removed tool that would have been VERY helpful for fighting CO2 emissions world wide. On top of that, their push for solar was, IMHO, especially in the past, misguided, as I think we now HAVE tons of solar, and it's causing problems of it's own, since we don't have the other things needed to really make it work the way we need it too. It's actually costing us money, in some places, because there is too much energy during the day (forcing some companies to actually have to dump energy, unused, because there just isn't any where to ship it too and no one who needs it right now, when it's available) and not enough when folks actually use the stuff in the early evening and night, after work.

Quote:
What do you think- if democracy itself is corrupted, broken and ineffective, are we going to have to get out the guillotine? How long do you think we have left to decide? Please don't give me that, "It isn't going to be literally Armageddon so drop the hyperbole (and maybe the whole issue with it)" Climate change accelerates every year, and the future looks bleaker all the time. Can we accept not addressing it because a few captains of industry prefer it that way? Since the obvious answer is "no", what is it going to take, XT?
No, I don't think we need to toss the baby out with the bath water. We don't need a revolution. Those are, IMHO, the opposite of what is needed. I'm not sure how to fix our current political issues, except that, historically, when the political parties were going off the rails, and the political factions at each others throats, eventually some event or series of events managed to right the ship. The fallout was, several times, one of the major political parties going down and being replaces by a new one. This hasn't happened in a while, but perhaps that's where things are going. I THINK that's what will happen...to me, the Republican party is on the cusp, and if they continue to hang their coat tails on Trump I think this is the eventual outcome. Maybe faster than people think, though that might be wishful thinking on my part.

As for climate change, I don't think the future is as bleak as many make it out to be. Oh, I think it's going to be bad, but I think we will survive. It's just going to be harder times than we have gotten used too. I think that we, collectively are already doing things to start to mitigate the issue. Wind and solar are now mature technologies, costing a fraction of what they once did...and I expect that trend to continue. Distributed storage systems exist, and while expensive, I think those costs are also falling. It's why I have a Tesla powerwall (2 actually) for my house to go with my own solar generation system. I'm in the optimal area for it, and I worked with the vendor to give me great coverage from mid-morning into the late afternoon, when the battery is able to take over for a good percentage of the night. My actual energy bills are below $20 a month...some months (late spring, summer and early fall) I actually get a check (well, a rebate or credit I guess) from the energy company and don't pay anything. I'll have the whole system paid off in less than 8 years at the rate I'm going. The cost to benefit still wasn't really there, as the ROI was fairly long, but it was close...and I think over the next 5-10 years it will hit the sweet spot for affordability to a much wider audience. I can tell you in my neighborhood maybe half of the homes have solar now.

I also think that AEV are a coming thing. I was unconvinced for years, but in 2016 they crossed the 1 million production mark, world wide, which I think was a huge deal, and I expect that figure to continue to rise as the vehicles become more affordable and available and as their performance envelops curve to meet those of ICE vehicles. I think the car I have now will be my last ICE car...maybe my last fully manual driving vehicle as well, but we shall see.

All of this doesn't mean we still aren't going to get hammered by global climate change. Simply put, we are. We are going to have much more energetic storms, we are going to have much more flooding and many more droughts. The seas will rise...the temperature alone is going to make that happen, let alone an ice free arctic. So, those things are going to happen, and more. We will probably lose a lot more species as well...coral for sure is probably going to go mostly extinct, but a lot more in the oceans as the oceans absorb more and more CO2 and become increasingly more acidic. But we aren't going to go extinct. Our civilization isn't going to die and we go into some Mad Max dystonian world. We will get through this, and in a century or 2 (or 5 ) I think things will start to recover. In the mean time, we are starting to deal with this. I don't think that we can deal with it much differently than we have been because I don't believe anyone has the power to just force through the things that folks who are talking draconian measures want. It's not possible, politically, do do that across the board. Oh, in a small country you could, if your people are mostly on board, but not in the really large ones, and not globally. Basically, you have to convince people there is a long term threat and that they are going to have to make personal sacrifices to address that threat. That's really, REALLY difficult to do. And the reality is, it takes time. It's taken decades so far, and we aren't there yet wrt the threat.

Circling back to the nuclear, I'll just say that if all sides REALLY thought there was a threat, if we REALLY thought we needed draconian measures, then we'd be building nuclear power plants like crazy, we'd be approving some of the new designs for testing and evaluation, and we'd have been doing thing for at least a decade at this point. There are, currently only around 60 nuclear power plants in the US with something like 100 total reactors...a number that is slowly dwindling. If we had 120 power plants and 200 reactors, something that would cost between $1-4 trillion, then 40% we'd have substantially less CO2 generation happening today than we do. If global climate change was REALLY seen as a threat by all sides, this is low hanging fruit, as $1-4 trillion...or even $10 trillion...over a decade or two isn't that much. It's doable.

But, politically, it's really not in the environment we have. Pretty much from every angle, it doesn't make sense. Politically, economically...it's a non-starter.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #139  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:58 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
It would be cheaper to work to mitigate climate change to the extent that that is possible than it will be to deal with the effects. At least if the sea level rise predictions are true. Plus the spread of tropical disease is going to be slightly problematic.

The lack of nuclear is distressing. I wonder how much was foolish hippies and how much was foolish NIMBYs.
  #140  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:11 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The lack of nuclear is distressing. I wonder how much was foolish hippies and how much was foolish NIMBYs.
I'm inclined to give NIMBYs most of the blame for that, particularly in the wake of TMI and The China Syndrome, which made nuclear power seem a scary thing. After that, nobody wanted a plant anywhere near them.

It also doesn't help, however, that we've not really come up with a good solution to the waste problem.
  #141  
Old 09-29-2019, 11:35 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,567
XT, I didn't bring it up, but do you mind saying a few words about the nuclear waste disposal problem? I see it as a 'tail' that pro-nuclear advocates seem to not want to mention. Then again, while I have a math and science education, I am not an engineer, and I also have not followed the nuclear issue very closely and am not super confident wrt my own opinions on this question.

The specific issue I see is something like this: France, which gets a significant amount of its power from nuclear, benefits nicely from that for the first 100 years or so. But then, for 100,000 years after that? 25,000 years? 500,000 years? they have all of this mortally toxic waste to manage, waste which AFAIK no method has been devised to safely contain. So, while AGW is absolutely a ticking time-bomb we're dropping onto future generations through our use of fossil fuels, nuclear waste is arguably just a different kind of time-bomb, only one that lasts effectively forever from a human perspective, while you said yourself AGW might be resolved within a 'mere' 500 years. A long time, but we can look back at the records and read about humans setting each other on fire for saying the wrong thing about the local culture's favored prophets and so on 500 years ago. 100,000 years is effectively unimaginable in terms of human history, forward or back.

How do we address this aspect of nuclear power?
  #142  
Old 09-29-2019, 12:47 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,996
The basic science behind climate change is compelling, and the seeming increase in extreme weather incidents disturbing.

The younger generations potentially have much to lose, and speaking out on these issues is important. I could do without the theatricality of spending sixteen days going to a meeting or making melodramatic comments.

It is important to balance economic interests with climate concerns. More clear headed, conservative media like The Economist claim this can be done in a way which makes money and can garner votes. But it isn’t easy. It is economically popular not to disturb influential and profitable industries. It isn’t politically popular to raise taxes, ask for sacrifices, offend job providers or increase debt.

World leaders are to blame if they don’t acknowledge the existence of a problem. It is easy to blame others when a coordinated solution is required. The solution is difficult and it is hard to know how much sacrifice may be needed. So the people who vote for world leaders share some blame too. I support solutions like nuclear plants, but the industry has not always been forthright and this is unhelpful. Ontario, at some cost, has abandoned coal. China is unlikely to do so soon. Leaders sometimes overpromise and are relying on future innovation instead of making progressive changes now.

Activists sometimes favour solutions which are not yet very feasible. Some solutions, such as not building pipelines, ignore current economic realities. The proper balance is hard to ascertain. Disparaging successful industries is not always helpful. Some progressives give too much credence to “pie in the sky” proposals or bundle too much other dogma in with climate change, which is probably more important.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #143  
Old 09-29-2019, 01:22 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,996
A concise and clear review of the science can be found in this weeks Economist magazine. At www.economist.com search for “Global warming 101”.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 09-29-2019 at 01:22 PM.
  #144  
Old 09-29-2019, 03:59 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
How do we address this aspect of nuclear power?
We would have to separate dead waste from recyclable waste, since I am assuming that irradiated metal is getting stored with spent fuel rods. This was several years ago since I last looked into why exactly we are keeping this waste without actually doing anything with it. From what I was told, the spent rods have some sort of value and that sending them into the sun was problematic for a number of reasons.

The reasonable solution is to have the waste worth money so that it can be traded on the open market, in the same way that gold is. So simply put, we ship it to the moon and placed where it can be monitored. For anyone that mentions, yes i did watch space 1999 as a kid and no i dont think that is going to be an issue.

On planet short term storage is not a problem, but there is no viable long term waste storage solution that is 25 thousand years or more, viable on planet.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #145  
Old 09-30-2019, 08:44 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 Try2B Comprehensive View Post
XT, I didn't bring it up, but do you mind saying a few words about the nuclear waste disposal problem? I see it as a 'tail' that pro-nuclear advocates seem to not want to mention. Then again, while I have a math and science education, I am not an engineer, and I also have not followed the nuclear issue very closely and am not super confident wrt my own opinions on this question.

The specific issue I see is something like this: France, which gets a significant amount of its power from nuclear, benefits nicely from that for the first 100 years or so. But then, for 100,000 years after that? 25,000 years? 500,000 years? they have all of this mortally toxic waste to manage, waste which AFAIK no method has been devised to safely contain. So, while AGW is absolutely a ticking time-bomb we're dropping onto future generations through our use of fossil fuels, nuclear waste is arguably just a different kind of time-bomb, only one that lasts effectively forever from a human perspective, while you said yourself AGW might be resolved within a 'mere' 500 years. A long time, but we can look back at the records and read about humans setting each other on fire for saying the wrong thing about the local culture's favored prophets and so on 500 years ago. 100,000 years is effectively unimaginable in terms of human history, forward or back.

How do we address this aspect of nuclear power?
Sure, why not? You need to start by getting some perspective on the problem. Global climate change is going to be, as the name implies, a global phenomena (do do dadodoodadoododadoododadoodoodoodutdutdutdodoo). It's going to affect the entire world. From a human perspective it's going to be pretty terrifyingly devastating, especially to the poorer countries and people. Droughts, floods, much more energetic storms. It's also going to accelerate the already happening extinction of species, especially those who's climate will change the most.

Nuclear waste, on the other hand, would be a strictly local event...or non-event. I'm not sure what the scale of this is in your mind, but we are talking about nuclear waste that is the size of a few box cars, at most, per plant. Not mountains of radio active waste.

The second aspect is, part of the problem in the US is self inflicted wrt nuclear waste. France doesn't have the issue the US does in part because they recycle their waste, and we don't. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and I'm not going to get into them here, but from an engineering aspect it makes disposal more difficult since we have more waste to dispose of. There are several other things we could do to mitigate waste, but recycling or reprocessing is a big one.

You'd still have some waste no matter what, however, which means you are going to need a repository that will, indeed stand up over time. I don't think this is an insurmountable obstacle...there have been plans for a central repository for decades, and we even spent billions mostly building one, only to abandon it due to political pressure. In fact, part of the cost that the folks building a nuclear plant in the US is SUPPOSED to go towards such a facility or facilities.

In the end, it's the perspective though. You have the potential for, perhaps, a really nasty local environmental issue. Or you have the the certainty that we WILL have a very real global climate event that will affect the entire world. Weighed against each other, even if we couldn't mitigate the nuclear waste issue at all, that's the lesser of two weevils. And, of course, we CAN mitigate it to a greater extent than we are...it's more politics and fear than engineering wrt nuclear waste storage.

Those are my quick, off the cuff thoughts FWIW.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #146  
Old 09-30-2019, 11:53 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,761
From one of America's better news sources:

Quote:
EUGENE, OR—Outlining what a shift in public consciousness regarding global ecocatastrophe might require, a study published by researchers at the University of Oregon Monday found the average American must have their life destroyed by a natural disaster every six minutes in order to finally fear climate change. ... “Roughly seven minutes following a climate disaster, ambivalence sets in and Americans forget why these natural disasters have increased so dramatically in recent years. The good news, however, is that in the five minutes directly after losing a loved one in a hurricane, participants were much more likely to consider reducing their carbon footprint by taking public transit rather than driving.” ... The report estimated that the nation would have to suffer 34,000 consecutive natural disasters this month in order to garner significant support for climate change legislation.
  #147  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:07 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,567
Ok, I asked how we deal with the nuclear waste problem. I admit I don't know the answer. One response was, "Store it off planet on the moon." I'd be cool with that if I were convinced nuclear waste could be 100% safely blasted off the Earth to the moon and stored there somehow.

The other answer was, "We can store it here on Earth for 25,000 years, but politics derailed it." Yucca Mountain, I presume?

In both cases, the posters rest their cases on their confidence that they are right. No offense guys, but can I get a little more meat with these potatoes?
  #148  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:46 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Given that I saw an article citing a farmer in Georgia whose crops were destroyed by hurricanes twice in a row, but still said it was just weather, the spoof is depressingly accurate.
  #149  
Old 09-30-2019, 05:12 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Ok, I asked how we deal with the nuclear waste problem. I admit I don't know the answer. One response was, "Store it off planet on the moon." I'd be cool with that if I were convinced nuclear waste could be 100% safely blasted off the Earth to the moon and stored there somehow
Well speaking from my point of view , we already have a system in place that would put nuclear materials about 90 percent of the way before as they say, what goes up must come down. No, its just an engineering problem with a fifty year backlog of waste but putting it on the moon might be more viable politically than Yucca.

But no, your never going to get a 100 percent safety launch especially with the culture that led to the Challenger disaster.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #150  
Old 09-30-2019, 05:23 PM
BrickBat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: US
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Given that I saw an article citing a farmer in Georgia whose crops were destroyed by hurricanes twice in a row, but still said it was just weather, the spoof is depressingly accurate.
...And to him, an act of God for sure, because "the lord works in mysterious ways".

Last edited by BrickBat; 09-30-2019 at 05:24 PM.
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 01:32 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