OK, are you dudes just luddites are do you actually believe in Global warming?
You say that Human caused global warming is “a reality” and that we have to cut greenhouse gas emission, especial CO2. Fine.
But if so, you’re a bunch of pious hypocrites.
Exhibit 1: You are violently anti-nuke. Nuclear power is clean, and does not add to greenhouse gases. Ok, I understand- you’ll lose your ultra liberal “cred” if you support nuclear power, and there are issues with disposal. Not to mention Japan has shown us that the older plants can be dangerous if hit with a huge natural disaster. Meanwhile coal power plants kill 10’s of 1000’s a year.
Exhibit 2: You fought a solar power plant. Sure, some desert habitat would be gone. But habitat is always destroyed thru development. But it’s not like you just came out with a press release- noooo. You spent hundreds of 1000’s of your members dues and made the solar company spend millions of $, and delayed it for a year or two. Meanwhile coal power plants kill 10’s of 1000’s a year.
Exhibit 3: Hetch Hetchy. Yeah, it would have been nice to have this valley alongside Yosemite. But we don’t. getting rid of the dam would mean that the $20 Million of safe, clean non-greenhouse gas emitting power would be gone, and millions would be left without clean safe water. The water could be replaced but at a terrible cost to the environment, and extra energy use. Energy use which will generate more CO2. All for an extra park to play in.
So which is it? Is Global warming “a reality” or isn’t it? Should we try to reduce greenhouse gases by alternate power generation or not?
So what should we do? My fellow greens, I understand your concerns about nukes and fracking. But if you shun both of these options, we’ll be stuck—barring some breakthrough in solar, wind or other energy technologies–with the worst alternative of all: deadly, dirty coal. Surely you don’t want that.
I am pretty sick of this bullshit argument. “Hur hur, if yur 4 teh environment than you must support neuclear power or else yur a hypocrit.”
Use less energy. It’s clean, does not add to greenhouse gasses, cheaper, and does not create risks with insanely high worst-case scenarios or extremely long-lasting, difficult to store and protect hazardous waste.
This is easy to say if you’re already living in the First World. Try telling it to someone in an emerging economy, how they should never be able to get out of crushing poverty because they should use less coal and nuclear is The Devil!
Oh shit, I’ve been caught out. I’m working on a book on Timor-Leste at the moment, mostly an overview of what has/has not worked in development aid, lessons learned, that sort of thing. I thought I could subtly sneak in a “suck it up, you’ll never be able to get out of crushing poverty,” but I guess I’ll have to take that line out. Last book I published was a volume of authors’ work on gender and sustainable development. It covered a wide range, from climate change to property rights. It took some pressure and calling in a lot of favours, but I got every author to sneak in some line about never escaping crushing poverty because coal and nuclear is the devil. Shit, it’s already been published … now what am I going to do?
Your petulant pro-nuke tirade was pungent, unreasoned ant vomit.
And I am tired of that bullshit argument. So your ecofriendly douchebag self uses half the energy (which is probably a lie because your hippie shit probably actually takes more energy) its okay to use crap like coal? Because umkay your all “green” and shit.
If you are using any more power than what your body can provide on your diet of doughnuts, cheap beer and blow you need to fucking get with it and support whatever power source has the minimum ecological impact. Or as the OP points out, you sure as fuck don’t need a policy that eventually leads to the worst fucking power source on the planet.
Fuck (cause you to need to say it at least three times).
OK, you realize that Sierra wants them to move it to a nearby less environmentally sensitive area. They do not oppose solar by any stretch, but there is a way to do it smartly and not just plop a ton of solar panels anywhere.
Yeah they said that “This is not the right place’, but they refused to say what place would be the right place. Other than in a already developed area (which means costs are 100’s of times higher to procure the land) where is a place with no environmental impact?
No, anybody who opposes nuclear power when given the choice between nuclear and coal is a drooling imbecile. It’s all good to talk about reducing consumption, but until it is reduced anybody who opposes nuclear is supporting coal and fracking. Hell, anybody who opposes nuclear and fracking is supporting coal and tar sand development. They are drooling imbeciles.