Let’s look at your words that you chose to write in GD, bolding mine:
Step one, accuser another poster of irrelevancy and bullshit. Step two, post irrelevant anecdotes about acquaintances. Step three, deny that you posted something about acquaintances. And your acquaintances are very clearly not representative of reality. Your tepid citation’s “yes” is based on one reporter’s opinion on Obama and congressional Dems from 2009.
Canadian liberals and leftists aren’t US liberals and leftists. Nobody else has chosen to be confused by this.
No, the root of NIMBY-ism is FEAR of the tech. And that fear has been cultivated, fueled, channeled and harnessed by the US left and anti-nuclear greens (though European groups have helped fan the flames of fear as well). It’s funny that you use the Homer Simpson bit about spilling a Pepsi and causing a nuclear meltdown as a rational argument.
It’s also funny that you trot out the ‘There is no RoI’ bit. I always loved this argument. Private companies can’t make a profit on nuclear! Why? Because it costs too much! Why? Because of all the safety restrictions they have to build in. Ok, but that doesn’t explain why they can’t make a profit, just why the RoI is long. Well, the projects are always delayed a bunch and then there are all those cost overruns. Um…why are they delayed and what causes the overruns? All the protests, of course, and lawsuits, and changes in plans forced by those lawsuits and the fears of the people in the area demanding them! Ok, that seems circular, but, again, why can’t they still make a profit? Nuclear power plants run for decades after all, so even if the RoI doesn’t start for a decade you’ll still have time to make money. Well, most of the plants don’t ever get built. Ah…bingo. That explains it all.
Yeah, it’s not the tech. It’s the fear of the tech by the ignorant and those who have no clue how to do a risk assessment or understand relative risks…and mainly by those who play on and use that fear and ignorance for their own ends. For the good of The People, of course…
If nuclear energy is socialism, why is Bernie Sanders anti-nuclear? Why isn’t Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez pushing for nuclear energy instead of moonbeams?
Your argument doesn’t work - conservatives don’t support nuclear energy, even though they do, because it is socialism, and socialists support nuclear energy, even though they don’t, because it is socialism.
Repudiate the green loonies, and require your candidates to push harder for nuclear energy than for wind or solar.
OK, fine, AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus on that is clear. The scientific consensus is just as clear that the only practical solution that exists as of now is nuclear energy.
Y’all seem to spend a lot of time condemning the anti-science folks on my side, but want to drop the subject when it comes to the anti-science folks on yours. You should be spending at least as much time slapping Bernie Sanders upside the head with the science as you do anyone else.
Is AGW really as catastrophic as y’all claim? Prove you mean it.
I disagree with Bernie on this, but your claim about anti-science on both sides is in this case totally bogus, a completely false equivalence. The deployment of nuclear power is not a science issue, it’s a policy issue. It’s exactly analogous to the policy discussions that I wish we could have about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation. But we can’t have those discussions in any meaningful way, because your side stops the discussion in its tracks by questioning whether anthropogenic climate change is even real. That’s anti-science.
The appropriate equivalence is the following: this artificial “debate” about climate change that’s been created by conservatives is like debating whether nuclear power actually works, or whether it’s all a hoax. That’s a debate one might have had in 1930, but today there’s no debate about the answer. Would that one could say the same about the climate change “debate”. Your side is the one that needs a good kick in the ass, because the elephant in the room that drives everything else is the urgent need to stop getting our energy by burning fossil fuels.
We need to clearly see fossil fuels for what they are: permanently sequestered carbon from millions of years ago. When we return that carbon to the atmosphere and to the earth’s dynamic carbon sinks, we are destroying the stable climate of the entire Late Quaternary and driving the climate – at a dangerous breakneck pace – to pre-Quaternary times before the Pleistocene. Yet many of your conservative pals are still wondering if CO2 has anything to do with climate, or if coal and oil have anything to do with any of it. That’s not a policy issue, it’s insanity.
To put it simply, this is nonsense. There is no such scientific consensus with regards to nuclear energy. And even if there were, do you realize what you just said? Last I checked, you’re voting republican. If you’re aware that AGW is real and is happening, how in the fucking world can you do that in good conscience?! "Sure, there’s this huge ongoing catastrophe barreling towards the world within the next 50 years, but I’m going to vote for the guys who literally do not believe it is happening.
As wolfpup points out, this is ridiculous. We can have meaningful policy debates once we’re, at least on some level, all in agreement about what we’re talking about. It makes no fucking sense to say, “Well, the left should be in favor of building power plants because they’re the most effective thing to replace coal, and until then I’m not going to bother listening to them on climate change”, because how best to handle climate change remains a discussion of policy, and we still don’t have a consensus on the basic fact that global warming is real due to right-wing propaganda. And meanwhile, the right is pushing to make life as easy as possible for coal producers!
Well, thank you for showing all you do not check what I said before in previous discussions, I already did that. As noted before they are not in the end very important. The point I made stands, only on a place with more social or govermental solutions, (that end up being called socialist, and you know your leaders do call them that) is that nuclear power was developed significantly.
So if AGW is real, and as catastrophic as you claim it will be, then it is more important than health care or economic inequality. So why support him?
This, of course, is not true. Discussions about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation are not being stopped in any significant way for Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez or Harry Reid or any Democrat or any green loony.
They are stopped, or they should be, by the scientific consensus that nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem, and that solar and wind and renewables will not scale up in anything like what we need.
Being anti-nuclear is being anti-science just as much as any other kind.
History will look back on the climate change denialists and say “what were they thinking?” It will also look back on the nuclear energy denialists and say “what were they smoking?”
As I have said in the past, we aren’t going to do anything about AGW, except on an ad hoc basis and as problems arise. One side thinks we don’t need to do anything, and the other thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won’t work.
Eventually we will develop practical fusion (the greenies won’t like it) and switch to that. We are only ten years away from practical fusion - just like we have been for the last forty years.
(Also, it makes even less sense to say, “Your policy solution is marginally worse than optimal, therefore I think we should do nothing/exacerbate the problem.” Because ultimately, Shodan, that’s what the republicans are doing. It is literally worse than doing nothing.)
See, why do we need to police our side before you will deal with us? Do you need to police anyone on your side that disagrees before you feel that you can have a conversation? No, then why do you impose that upon your political opponent?
We have said that we are for nuclear, Ruken’s cite showed that there isn’t that much difference between conservative support for nuclear and democratic.
Sure, the greenpeace and other environmental groups align with the left. The left actually cares about the environment, what are they going to do, align with the part that wants to remove all restrictions and regulations about environmental damage? But at the same time, the mainstream left does not listen to them too closely. You have alt-right white nationalists, KKK members, and even Nazis on your side, are you allowed to have a discussion about relations between differing demographic groups before you police them?
So, sure, there are these people on our side that are anti-nuclear. We all get that. There are people on your side too, who are anti nuclear.
How about we stop complaining abut what is on one parties side or the other, and actually look to some solutions.
Look, your party is in complete control of the government. Can you tell me what your party’s plan for nuclear development is?
Yeah, there is concern about nuclear technology, and I would prefer that we do not build any more reactors that are based on 1950’s technology, as we have developed safer and more efficient designs. Designs that may even turn that “waste” into a useful commodity.
So, rather than continue to debate with people who are not here, how about you debate with the people who are actually in this thread? If a poster comes in being anti-nuke, you can give them all this. As we are pro-nuke, complaining about people who are not, who are not a part of this thread, is simply a distraction. Not just a distraction from this thread, but about global warming in general.
You complain, “Well, if liberals are worried about global warming, they should be pro-nuclear.” We show that there are many liberal, including ourselves, who are pro-nuclear, and you just keep deflecting the conversation to be about people who are not part of the conversation.
Now, if we want to get into a pissing contest about which side is better for nuclear, then that is fine. You tell me what your side has done to advance nuclear.
I don’t think history is going to sped much time sorting us out. I think we’ll all be painted with a broad brush, left and right alike.
My wife and I both believe in climate change and are middle of the road. My sister in law makes us look right of Reagan, and yet, she and her family have 2 SUVs, fly all over the world, have the house way warm in the winter and the way cool in the summer.
There will be enough blame for all.
Not to Godwin this thing, but no one ever says that those Nazi’s were bad dudes, but heh, the Schmidt’s voted for the Social Democrats so they are OK in my book.
If the planet goes way south, our grand kids will be pissed at us all.
Because your side has the anti-nuclear loonies that are standing in the way of actual progress.
Your side is the one that has to tell Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to go stick a solar panel up their noses and that AGW is too real and significant an issue to mess around with. They aren’t listening to anyone else.
It is of course true. What you’ve posted here is a load of crap from start to finish.
Republicans as a group are almost universally hostile to climate science and its findings, and for a Republican to say otherwise is political suicide. Mitt Romney initially acknowledged AGW during his presidential campaign, then had to quickly backtrack when that blew up in his face. Did the US pull out of the Paris climate agreement, the only country in the world to do so? Yes, they did. Who did it? A Republican. QED. Just like the Republican who brought a snowball into Congress to “prove” that the world isn’t warming (James Inhofe), or another Congressional Republican who used his authority to threaten and harass climate scientists (Joe Barton). Or the Republican in the Bush administration who falsified National Academy of Sciences climate reports to make them seem less definitive (Philip Cooney) and when exposed, quit and went to work for Exxon Mobil. They’re virtually all like that. I’ve seen Rick Santorum present a complete pack of lies about the issue, just outright falsehoods and gibberish pushing denial. The rare brighter ones like Ben Sasse bring more nuanced arguments, but the bottom line is always the same: do nothing.
Don’t try to tell us Republicans haven’t blocked discussion of mitigating climate change – in various coastal red states, even terms like “climate change” and “sea level rise” have literally been banned from government discourse.
In any case the only “discussion” that matters is meaningful legislative action, and that’s effectively impossible when virtually every Republican knows that climate change denial is a prerequisite for getting elected, and in some states as I said you’re not even allowed to mention it in Republican administrations. Your side. Not just deniers, but batshit crazy.
You’re also wrong of course about nuclear power being some kind of “science” debate. It’s purely a political policy issue. If you want nuclear power you need to get politicians to vote for it, build it, and decide how to run it and subsidize it.
And you’re also wrong in stating as some kind of indisputable scientific fact or law of nature that “nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem”. I think most of us feel it’s an important part of the solution, but it’s far from a scientific absolute. Wind power is remarkably reliable if broadly geographically distributed, and solar power is very efficient in some areas, while hydroelectric is feasible in others, plus other options. Again, it’s a cost and policy matter. It’s a also a continuum of options, where the most important priority is getting rid of coal-fired plants, a real scourge on the environment in many different ways. Even if we had gas-fired peak power plants for the medium term it would be a big improvement. But of course your side is now trying to bring back coal in a big way! It bears repeating: Your side. Batshit crazy.
And you’re also wrong in the claim that one side “thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won’t work”. It’s not even clear if you mean Democrats, or if you mean highly qualified economists and policy analysts like those of the IPCC Working Group III, which is entirely devoted to the topic of mitigation. Perhaps you believe that the entire series of assessments from experts in the WG3 is just crap that “costs a shitload and won’t work”. I don’t. I think it’s a comprehensive set of broad policy options from the world’s leading experts in their fields.
As I said, your entire screed is just total nonsense from start to finish.
Which president signed the Paris climate accords?
Which president removed us from the Paris climate accords?
Which president presided over severe regulations on the worst offenders for climate change?
Which president presided over severe deregulation on the worst offenders?
What was the partisan split on the house vote on the 2009 carbon tax bill?
(This list could keep going for quite a ways, mind you.)
This is a truly bizarre line of argument. It makes no sense, falls apart after even the slightest consideration, and is trivially debunked.
It’s also completely in character with the republican strategy on climate change.
If one fully believes the present IPCC report’s predictions then solar panels and Priuses are not going to work.
We need to go back to1700s technology and massive impoverishment of the world, especially the First world. Reducing one’s carbon footprint by 20% is useless.
Also, half a million people in my country still cook by burning animal shit so I’m not going to tell them anything until the US, Canada, Europe get ultra serious and also manage to convince China and India to go back to abject poverty.
Since that it’s not going to happen the whole “denier” won’t be relevant. Denier-free Europe has done worse than denier-full US in actual, real, non recession numbers.
Hey doorhinge, if you’re not going to respond to post 94, I’d appreciate it if you stopped responding, as you are not a participant in the thread, but rather the subject of the thread.
That’s terrific. You want to change the status quo, and because you have failed to do so, you’ve decided that resorting to name-calling is going to finally CONVINCE the people you have so far been unable to CONVINCE that they should believe as you believe. Keep up the good work.
You don’t want to make this an evolution debate by attempting to debate evolution. Interesting. Personally, I consider your attempt to change the topic to evolution as an attempted hijack of this thread. However, seeing as you have asked so nicely, I believe in evolution. I also believe that global warming is occurring.
p.s. I don’t know why my response appears in bold. It doesn’t contain any bracketed B.
It’s easy to preach to the choir. They are already onboard. What you need to do, and this is only my opinion, you need to convince more of the people who are walking by your pulpit. In short, you currently don’t have the votes, and you need more votes.
I’m suggesting that your side change their approach. Unless they like the results that they’ve achieved so far.
Incidentally, while burning things may not be a great way to get energy, burning things that are part of the active carbon cycle tends to be relatively carbon neutral. Fossil fuels are not. You need to understand the difference.
