How will history see the climate change denialists?

[Deeg]

bump

Elizabeth Warren has read the polls and interpreted the tea leaves; yesterday she came out decidedly against nuclear power. That makes two of the top three Democrat candidates against nuclear power. Three of the minor candidates (Castro, Gabbard, and Buttigieg) are also anti-nuke. Biden is still tepidly pro-nuke so there’s still some hope but I don’t want to hear any more bullshit about how the liberals are so much better on reducing CO2 than conservatives. Future generations are going to blame everybody: the conservatives for denying the problem and the liberals for denying the best solution.

[Kimstu]

@Deeg

Elizabeth Warren has read the polls and interpreted the tea leaves; yesterday she came out decidedly against nuclear power. That makes two of the top three Democrat candidates against nuclear power.

Meh. While I don’t agree with fellow Democrats who refuse to consider shifting energy resources more towards nuclear power in response to climate change, I’m not convinced that Warren as President would actually be in that camp. I also think that, given the currently declining role of nuclear in US power generation and the slack being picked up by growth in renewables and demand reduction, candidates may be hoping that continuing trends will by early 2021 have solved a good chunk of this problem for them.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

To be fair, when the best thing you can say about your party’s position is “not everyone in the party is a climate denialist who is doing everything they can to increase our emissions, just the president, senate majority leader, and virtually everyone in any position of power”, it makes sense to reach for bullshit whataboutisms. That is, if your goal is to minimize your own culpability, rather than actually do something. I mean, for fuck’s sake, how hard is it to read this sentence:

Future generations are going to blame everybody: the conservatives for denying the problem and the liberals for denying the best solution.

…and realize that, even if we take you entirely at your word that nuclear power is undeniably and unrefutably the “best solution”, these are not equivalent positions? :mad:

It’s a distraction, a whataboutism to try to say, “Sure, republicans are bad on climate, but democrats are too!” Treating the question of “should we expand nuclear to solve climate change” as though it’s anywhere near as crucial or as resolved as “should we do something about climate change”. Which, for the record, it isn’t:

Maybe yes, but maybe no, two university energy experts say. They point not only to high construction costs but also to long lead times before on-the-drawing-board “new nukes” could really go commercial. They point to the pros and cons of keeping aging nuclear power plants on the job: “If we shut them down and replace them with natural gas,” says climate change expert (and Yale Climate Connections contributor) Zeke Hausfather, “that’s a disaster from a climate perspective.”

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

Given that a new nuclear power plant getting underway today is unlikely to come online, on average, until around 2033, those seeing nukes as a silver bullet are engaging in “a complete boondoggle and a waste of money,” Stanford’s Mark Jacobson says.

A solution that won’t go online until the 2030s is a bit rough given the timescales we’re working with.

I will concede that opposition to nuclear power is not a good look. But let’s not mince words - this is not a useful contribution to discussion about climate change. This is a right-wing wedge issue, used to try to minimize their own culpability. Don’t fall for it.

[Deeg]

@Kimstu

Meh. While I don’t agree with fellow Democrats who refuse to consider shifting energy resources more towards nuclear power in response to climate change, I’m not convinced that Warren as President would actually be in that camp. I also think that, given the currently declining role of nuclear in US power generation and the slack being picked up by growth in renewables and demand reduction, candidates may be hoping that continuing trends will by early 2021 have solved a good chunk of this problem for them.

Your response indicates that drastically reducing CO2 emissions is not important to you. Renewables will reduce carbon emissions but they won’t come close to eliminating them. You also seem to think that Warren is a bit of a liar.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

To be fair, when the best thing you can say about your party’s position is “not everyone in the party is a climate denialist who is doing everything they can to increase our emissions, just the president, senate majority leader, and virtually everyone in any position of power”, it makes sense to reach for bullshit whataboutisms. That is, if your goal is to minimize your own culpability, rather than actually do something. I mean, for fuck’s sake, how hard is it to read this sentence:

Future generations are going to blame everybody: the conservatives for denying the problem and the liberals for denying the best solution.

…and realize that, even if we take you entirely at your word that nuclear power is undeniably and unrefutably the “best solution”, these are not equivalent positions? :mad:

You’re right, that are not equivalent positions; in some ways the liberals are worse. They KNOW how dire GW/CC and they STILL dicker around (see Kimstu’s response above). In the end, however, they lead to an equivalent result: not enough action on reducing CO2.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

It’s a distraction, a whataboutism to try to say, “Sure, republicans are bad on climate, but democrats are too!” Treating the question of “should we expand nuclear to solve climate change” as though it’s anywhere near as crucial or as resolved as “should we do something about climate change”. Which, for the record, it isn’t:

Maybe yes, but maybe no, two university energy experts say. They point not only to high construction costs but also to long lead times before on-the-drawing-board “new nukes” could really go commercial. They point to the pros and cons of keeping aging nuclear power plants on the job: “If we shut them down and replace them with natural gas,” says climate change expert (and Yale Climate Connections contributor) Zeke Hausfather, “that’s a disaster from a climate perspective.”

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

Given that a new nuclear power plant getting underway today is unlikely to come online, on average, until around 2033, those seeing nukes as a silver bullet are engaging in “a complete boondoggle and a waste of money,” Stanford’s Mark Jacobson says.

A solution that won’t go online until the 2030s is a bit rough given the timescales we’re working with.

I will concede that opposition to nuclear power is not a good look. But let’s not mince words - this is not a useful contribution to discussion about climate change. This is a right-wing wedge issue, used to try to minimize their own culpability. Don’t fall for it.

I entirely disagree. Let’s got back 20 years ago, when GW first started to become a serious topic, and picture two scenarios:

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

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

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

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

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

[Deeg]

So I just looked up some stats. According to this site:

Solar generation is projected to climb from 7 percent of total U.S. renewable generation in 2015 to about 36 percent by 2050, making it the fastest-growing electricity source.

I have no idea on how reliable the site is but it appears to be pro-renewable organization. They project, by 2050 (a long way away!) to have just 1/3 of US power coming from solar. World-wide:

Renewables made up 24 percent of global electricity generation in 2014. That’s expected to rise to 31 percent by 2040. Most of the increase will likely come from wind and hydropower.

31 percent is not going to solve the problem. We need nuclear power. Warren is an idiot.

[GIGObuster]

@Deeg

So I just looked up some stats. According to this site:

Solar generation is projected to climb from 7 percent of total U.S. renewable generation in 2015 to about 36 percent by 2050, making it the fastest-growing electricity source.

I have no idea on how reliable the site is but it appears to be pro-renewable organization. They project, by 2050 (a long way away!) to have just 1/3 of US power coming from solar. World-wide:

Renewables made up 24 percent of global electricity generation in 2014. That’s expected to rise to 31 percent by 2040. Most of the increase will likely come from wind and hydropower.

31 percent is not going to solve the problem. We need nuclear power. Warren is an idiot.

Nuclear is about 11 percent, and in a previous discussion it is clear that since no progress has been made under the Republicans to put a tax on carbon emissions or a cap and trade system that puts a cost on using fossil fuels, private energy companies are closing nuclear powers as they find that things like natural gas are more economical.

IMHO, once the Real costs are added to the emissions the solutions will be deployed at a faster rate, and even nuclear will be a part of it, even if Warren does not approve, but I would not agree that nuclear will be absolutely needed since deployment is not as economical as one would want.

[kirkrapine]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Pretty much. It’s worth referencing the steps of denialism:

Expressed more fully here The Denialist Staircase:

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring,[37] pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional.
2. Simply deny global warming is happening and maintain that no action is necessary[38] — so we don’t have to change anything.
3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it’s caused by solar activity — so we don’t have to change anything.
5. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don’t have to change anything, Ehrlich![39]
6. Global warming is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.[40]
7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world’s poor from improving their lives] — so we don’t have to change anything.
8. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority[41] — so we don’t have to change anything.
9. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but it’s just human sin, so outside of worthless praying, we don’t have to change anything.[42]
10. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren’t doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.[43]
11. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I’ve heard about this new energy source/technology that’s going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don’t have to change anything.
12. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.
13. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it’s too late now![44]

When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above — otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order (NWO) as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

Global warming deniers have raised a number of slightly more scientific arguments which are covered below.

Many of these claims are thrown into one big denialist soup. However, the problem is that many of them are also contradictory in nature.

For example, the common talking points about it being warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and low climate sensitivity (i.e. “climate is much more stable than that”) contradict each other, because the existence of a Medieval Warm Period necessitates high climate sensitivity.

Another common inconsistency lies in asserting that “temperature records and proxies are notoriously inaccurate” (always to some undecidable degree beyond the statistical error scientists already factor in), while in the next breath, suddenly inventing presenting select ‘reliable records’ as evidence for whichever esoteric conclusion on global climate the individual denialist in question happens to be gunning for this time around.[45]

[kirkrapine]

XKCD: Earth Temperature Timeline.