# Why do conservatives so strongly oppose the idea of climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713 "2018-08-16T02:55:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/221 "2018-08-23T22:37:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which goes back to what I said in my first post to the thread - Democrats need to push back as hard against the anti-science elements in their party - the greens - as the GOP does against the anti-science elements in their’s. Did you mean “as the GOP does against the **PRO-science** elements in theirs”? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/222 "2018-08-24T00:25:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which goes back to what I said in my first post to the thread - Democrats need to push back as hard against the anti-science elements in their party - the greens - as the GOP does against the anti-science elements in their’s. So when Harry Reid blocks Yucca Mountain and Obama goes along with it, or Bernie Sanders opposes nuclear energy, or Ocasio-Cortez declines to include nuclear energy in her ambitious plans, Democrats are the ones who need to correct them. They aren’t listening to anyone else. I even noticed former NOAA scientists criticising the lack of Nuclear power in many plans; however, as noted, the ones currently in power are the Republicans. And AFAIK, their efforts are just slightly better than the Democratic administration of before. And in the end really inadequate. > [@Shodan](#): > > And this goes back to something else I said - we aren’t going to do anything about AGW. Republicans (to some extent) say we don’t need something that works. Democrats (to at least as great an extent) say “there’s nothing we can do about a practical solution, so let’s push an impractical one”. I also many times pointed at troubles many conservatives have with timelines or the march of progress. I do think many are like the one I noticed in a discussion about a year ago where the poster was adamant that the costs of solar where just as he saw then back in the 80s or 90s when he was working on the field. That was really sad when the evidence was shown to him about the huge drop in prices. I have seen that when technology is the issue progress does many times make even formerly experienced people that think that issues of the past are not being taken care of to fall for defeatist spin. While that defeatism goes for alternative sources of energy, one thing many conservative pro nuclear guys forget is that the nuclear people have growing issues that are not related to stupid Greenpeace stunts against nuclear power\* [https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-04-16/exelon-official-no-new-nuclear-plants-to-be-built-in-the-us](https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-04-16/exelon-official-no-new-nuclear-plants-to-be-built-in-the-us) > [@](#): > > A senior official with America’s largest nuclear plant operating company is predicting a dim future for nuclear power in the U.S, according to S&P Global Platts. > > William Von Hoene, senior vice president and chief strategy officer at Exelon, said last week that he doesn’t foresee any new nuclear plants being built in the United States due to their high operating costs. > > “The fact is - and I don’t want my message to be misconstrued in this part - I don’t think we’re building any more nuclear plants in the United States. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen,” Platts quoted Von Hoene as saying at the annual U.S. Energy Association’s meeting in Washington, D.C. “I’m not arguing for the construction of new nuclear plants. They are too expensive to construct, relative to the world in which we now live.” > [@](#): > > “I think it’s very unlikely that absent some extraordinary change in environment or technology, that any nuclear plants beyond the Vogtle plant will be built in my lifetime, by any company,” Platts quoted Von Hoene as saying, referring to a plant currently under construction in Georgia. > > Von Hoene says because of nuclear plants’ sizes and the security required to monitor them, the costs become prohibitive. I do think that Von Hoene has seen the writing on the wall by looking at how things are shaping up in other places: > **[Australia’s first large-scale grid-connected solar and battery project comes...](https://www.pv-tech.org/australias-first-large-scale-grid-connected-solar-and-battery-project-comes/)** > > The first large-scale solar and battery storage project to be connected to the grid in Australia has started providing power to 3,000 homes and businesses in Far North Queensland (FNQ) while forming a test case for deliberate 'islanding'. And coal people should also take some notes: > **[Does new coal stack up financially? Consider Queensland's renewables numbers](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-27/new-coal-doesnt-stack-up-just-look-at-queensland/9913882)** > > There are calls from the backbench and elsewhere for the Federal Government to safeguard the future of coal. But do those calls make economic sense? A look at Queensland's energy landscape suggests not, write Matthew Stocks and Andrew Blakers. Still, even after I see that, I do agree with Hoene on something: Nuclear should still play a part in the future where alternative energy sources will stop being alternative. \*Yes, while I agree on several issues with that group, I’m on the record already of not supporting Greenpeace on their asinine nuclear power fears. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/223 "2018-08-24T01:25:31Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Where do you get that last part. > > I’m a Jesus Freak thank you and I dont believe that and I have NEVER heard that preached. Just what bodily orifice do you pull this out of? > > snip. You may not have heard it, but it exists: > **[Evangelicals Value People Over the Planet. Is That Why They’re Standing by...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/evangelicals-lack-of-environmentalism-explains-scott-pruitt.html)** > > And could this explain his approach? > **[Perspective | Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/02/why-dont-christian-conservatives-worry-about-climate-change-god/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95cb96ed3fff)** > > A key bloc of Trump's supporters think solving the problem is out of human hands. > **[The US evangelicals who believe environmentalism is a 'native evil' | Leo...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon)** > > Leo Hickman: The Cornwall Alliance, a prominent group of religious thinkers in the US, explains why it urges followers to 'resist the Green Dragon' ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/224 "2018-08-24T03:17:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which goes back to what I said in my first post to the thread - Democrats need to push back as hard against the anti-science elements in their party - the greens - as the GOP does against the anti-science elements in their’s. So when Harry Reid blocks Yucca Mountain and Obama goes along with it, or Bernie Sanders opposes nuclear energy, or Ocasio-Cortez declines to include nuclear energy in her ambitious plans, Democrats are the ones who need to correct them. They aren’t listening to anyone else. There is one very clear anti-science party in the US. Only 1 republican candidate for president (Jeb!) would admit to believing in evolution out of 17. And even he said words to the effect of “Teach the controversy”. I’m sick of this trend recently of people saying “both parties are as bad as each other” no matter what happens, and that we need to “come to the center”. No – one side is much more unprincipled and ignorant than the other right now, and the overton window has moved right over into crazy town. And the point about nuclear power just illustrates this. I am pro-nuclear power but I understand that there are reasonable arguments against it, and I feel I could sit down with someone against nuclear power and have a fact-based discussion. There’s no equivalence between that and someone who denies climate change (despite the fact we’re having record-breaking year after record-breaking year), or who accepts climate change but desperately scratches around for an excuse to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/225 "2018-08-24T05:21:56Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > You do know your site shows an increase? > > In any case say with electric cars your just switching from one fuel (gasoline) to another (electricity). > > Now your right we are becoming more energy efficient. Cars are more efficient. HVAC systems and lighting also. But then we also demand more indoor temperature controlled space. 15.5 is larger than 14.4, so yes, I know there was an increase. It has been a bit higher in the past year because of the good economy. But this is total consumption, not per capita. Maybe your state hasn’t grown, but mine sure as hell has. Very little of this has to do with electric cars, which are still not very prevalent. My hybrid uses no power from the grid, and a lot is just better fuel economy, the thing the Trump Administration is against. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/226 "2018-08-24T05:32:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which goes back to what I said in my first post to the thread - Democrats need to push back as hard against the anti-science elements in their party - the greens - as the GOP does against the anti-science elements in their’s. So when Harry Reid blocks Yucca Mountain and Obama goes along with it, or Bernie Sanders opposes nuclear energy, or Ocasio-Cortez declines to include nuclear energy in her ambitious plans, Democrats are the ones who need to correct them. They aren’t listening to anyone else. > Regards, > Shodan Opposition to nuclear power has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with engineering. If the opposition centered around the fear that a reactor would go up like an atomic bomb you’d have a point. There is a question of whether a carbon tax or the carbon credit is the better way or reducing CO2 production. That is an economic argument, not a scientific one. If that is where the GOP was we’d be a lot better off. BTW, do you think Scott Pruitt was a good choice for EPA head - not considering his crookedness? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/227 "2018-08-24T05:37:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which goes back to what I said in my first post to the thread - Democrats need to push back as hard against the anti-science elements in their party - the greens - as the GOP does against the anti-science elements in their’s. Okay, so first of all, the GOP _doesn’t_ push back against the anti-science elements in theirs. At all. They elevate them to positions of power where they can lead their anti-science crusade more effectively. So all democrats would have to do to push back harder is… fuck, I dunno, not put Carolyn Maloney at the head of a vaccine task force? The bar is pretty fucking low, is what I’m saying. Secondly, there’s a bitter irony of you demanding we police our own side when, when given the opportunity to push back against someone saying that global warming is a socialist conspiracy, you took the opportunity to _agree_ with that person. :mad: > [@](#): > > And this goes back to something else I said - we aren’t going to do anything about AGW. Republicans (to some extent) say we don’t need something that works. Democrats (to at least as great an extent) say “there’s nothing we can do about a practical solution, so let’s push an impractical one”. These are not equivalent. “There is a problem but our solution isn’t going to fully resolve it/isn’t very practical” and “There is no problem. _Sticks fingers in ears_ I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALA” are _not equivalent_ - not least because if we do stumble upon a solution that works, the former position is a lot easier to _change_. And also, we only have your word on it that the democratic solutions are impractical or won’t work, and let’s be honest - “your word” on the issue of climate change isn’t something I’m just going to take. Evidence, please? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/228 "2018-08-24T13:32:24Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “There is a problem but our solution isn’t going to fully resolve it/isn’t very practical” and “There is no problem. _Sticks fingers in ears_ I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALA” are _not equivalent_ - not least because if we do stumble upon a solution that works, the former position is a lot easier to _change_. We already have a solution that has a chance of working. So change your position. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/229 "2018-08-24T13:54:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We already have a solution that has a chance of working. And is _your_ party - you know, the one that controls every branch of government right now - implementing that solution? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/230 "2018-08-24T15:26:10Z")
No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/231 "2018-08-24T15:33:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else. > > Regards, > Shodan The Presidency, The House, The Senate and the Supreme Court. How much more political power do you need to get what you supposedly want? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/232 "2018-08-24T15:43:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else. > > Regards, > Shodan What an interesting perspective. Thanks for the nice chat. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/233 "2018-08-24T15:51:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else. Of course, after seeing the evidence, that “something else” is very significant and the evidence is that it is not farfetched to foresee even more progress on that front unlike what [the ignorant sources from the right and astroturfing sphere are telling you.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2013/lovins-debunking-the-renewable-energy-disinformation-campaign/) > **[Redirecting Trump’s Coal and Nuclear Bailout to Fund Economic Redevelopment](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/redirecting-trumps-coal-and-nuclear-bailout-to-fund-economic-transition)** > > Bailout money could be better used to cover gaps in tax revenue, help workers retrain for new jobs, and fuel economic development in affected communities. > [@](#): > > Coal and nuclear facilities are facing a tough economic reality in the United States. Competitive power markets are oversupplied, while natural gas and renewable energy are undercutting coal and nuclear on cost. > > State policymakers face hard choices about how to define a pragmatic approach to nuclear facilities, depending on how they value pollution. But there are no good reasons to believe coal will become competitive on cost or pollution grounds anytime soon. > > Last year, the Department of Energy proposed a federal bailout for power plants that could prove they had a 90-day supply of fuel on site, suggesting that imminent coal and nuclear retirements would constitute a national emergency. But the five members of the bipartisan Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously rejected DOE’s proposed market intervention in January 2018, citing a lack of evidence that retiring coal and nuclear facilities would cause reliability or grid resilience concerns out of the normal course of business for the nation’s power grid. > > However, a DOE memo made public earlier this summer suggests the agency is still considering exercising emergency authority to require electric consumers to pay above-market rates to ensure certain coal and nuclear plants stay online, despite mounting evidence from grid operators that these power plants are not needed. > [@](#): > > FirstEnergy has been among the loudest voices clamoring for a coal and nuclear plant financial rescue, and it’s no wonder why — new economic realities are hitting the company hard. Its competitive subsidiary filed for bankruptcy last spring after filing a deactivation notice for three of its uncompetitive nuclear power plants, and last week it filed worker retraining plans for these plants with federal regulators. > > FirstEnergy’s market-exposed power plants would need about $1 billion per year to keep running profitably. Assuming the two-year price support referenced in DOE’s memo from earlier this summer, that would imply subsidies of about $2 billion over two years to keep six of FirstEnergy’s uneconomic plants operating. > > Giving $2 billion over two years to one company is a shocking amount of money to squander in the face of underlying economic trends that show no signs of reversal. So, assuming the price supports went forward, it’s quite reasonable to think that the same retirements would be imminent for FirstEnergy at the end of the period. And the affected communities would still face the same tough economic and employment questions in two years. > > But what if funds were instead directed to help impacted workers and the communities that host the power plants that can no longer compete in power markets? What if funds went directly to communities to support the inevitable transition, diversifying local economies and setting the stage for longer-lasting solutions? > > In the case of FirstEnergy, if the same $2 billion were to be directed toward locally led solutions in each of their six affected communities, instead of keeping these uneconomic power plants running for two more years, it would provide more than $300 million per community. > > The idea may seem far-fetched, but it’s already been implemented in New York. Consider Tonawanda, located outside Buffalo, where a 750-megawatt coal plant’s retirement was recently announced. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/234 "2018-08-24T15:58:31Z")
I assume that Shodan is talking about nuclear power and he’s sorta right. If it truly is apocalyptic global warming that we’re talking about. If you really, truly believe that we’re talking about society melting down due to global warming, then the problems with nuclear power pale in comparison. Waste disposal is not a fun problem, but it’s a relatively solved problem and the risk of meltdown is very real, but also very small and incredibly minor in comparison to apocalyptic scenarios regarding food security and the climate frying the Global South alive. If you are someone that really, truly believes in a global warming apocalypse, then getting on the nuclear power bandwagon is the way to go. Of course, what Shodan doesn’t mention is that it’s not really NIMBYs and Greens blocking nuclear power (although they ARE the ones that are causing existing plants to shut down - while Czarcasm is right in saying that the Federal government is completely Republican, the same can’t be said for state governments who are the ones exerting pressure.) It’s the same thing that blocks everything else in the energy sector - cheap and abundant natural gas (not renewables which sometimes get lumped with it. It’s all natural gas. Renewables are still mostly a pipe dream outside of hydro. We’re up to 440 GW of natural gas compared to about 100 of wind and solar combined.) A nuclear plant is an enormous investment that ultimately costs more to produce electricity than natural gas. Natural gas plants are relatively cheap and easy and they can be idled if conditions change. Nuclear is a long term, high risk investment and it doesn’t appear in most cases that utility companies think that it’s worth the risk. Bottom line though is that if you really truly believe in the global warming apocalypse, subsidizing nuclear is really the way to go. It’s proven, it’s scaleable, it’s effective. The fact that no one is doing it tells me that no one really has a firm grasp on their climate change beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/235 "2018-08-24T17:02:35Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Bottom line though is that if you really truly believe in the global warming apocalypse, subsidizing nuclear is really the way to go. It’s proven, it’s scaleable, it’s effective. The fact that no one is doing it tells me that no one really has a firm grasp on their climate change beliefs. “No one is doing it”? [Really?](https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html) [No one at all?](https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/) ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/236 "2018-08-24T17:13:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else. > > Regards, > Shodan You can make that claim but the facts don’t substantiate it. From [POST=18798570]this thread[/POST]: _In the last ten sessions (104th through 113th, 1995 through 2015) the United States Congress has been fully dominated by the Republican party 60% of the time, continuous from 1995 through 2007 (104th through 109th), and enjoyed a significant majority in the House from 2011 (112th) through the present where they again have significant majorities in both houses. A cursory look through [govtrack.us](http://govtrack.us) on House and Senate bills and House resolutions shows a pretty thorough mix of Republicans and Democrats proposing laws or resolutions on nuclear power. So, assuming that Republicans are largely aligned with “conservative” views, it would seem that your question should be “What has the [DEL]liberal[/DEL]conservative establishment done to push nuclear power?”_ [POST=18795997]Meanwhile[/POST]: \*_Mother Jones_ magazine–you know, that self-avowed bastion of far-left liberalism–has run a number of articles in the past few years in cautious support for nuclear fission power such as [“Will Thorium Nuclear Energy Save Us All?”](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nuclear-energy-china-thorium), [“The Pro-Nukes Environmental Movement”](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/pro-nuclear-power-environmental-movement), and the unambiguously titled [“Why We Need Nuclear Power”](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change). \* The predominately conservative Republican party has had plenty of opportunity to promote an expansion of nuclear energy (and one would hope research into more advanced methods of nuclear fission that require less processing and waste disposal) and has pretty much done fuck-all about it > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The Presidency, The House, The Senate and the Supreme Court. > How much more political power do you need to get what you supposedly want? They want it all, they want it all, they want it all, and they want it now! Unfortunately, like a virgin boy on prom night, they have absolutely no idea to do with it once they have it. It’s been a year and a half of feckless groping and fumbling with the bra clasp, and all they have to show for it is an abortive attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and a tax cut that with long term impacts seemly designed to turn the United States into one of those “shithole countries” while providing a transient benefit to the very wealthy. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/237 "2018-08-24T17:22:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “No one is doing it”? [Really?](https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html) > > [No one at all?](https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/) That’s actually my point. The science is behind it, but the movement is not. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/238 "2018-08-24T17:25:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, after seeing the evidence, that “something else” is very significant and the evidence is that it is not farfetched to foresee even more progress on that front unlike what [the ignorant sources from the right and astroturfing sphere are telling you.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2013/lovins-debunking-the-renewable-energy-disinformation-campaign/) > > [Redirecting Trump's Coal and Nuclear Bailout to Fund Economic Redevelopment | Greentech Media](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/redirecting-trumps-coal-and-nuclear-bailout-to-fund-economic-transition) Again - this is why we aren’t going to do anything about AGW. The same climate scientists who tell us that AGW is real say things like - > [@](#): > > Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power… and Democrats want to talk about something else - in this case, coal. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/239 "2018-08-24T17:34:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again - this is why we aren’t going to do anything about AGW. The same climate scientists who tell us that AGW is real say things like - and Democrats want to talk about something else - in this case, coal. > > Regards, > Shodan Since when does the Republican Party give a flying fuck about what Democrats want and/or what climate scientists say? “If we only had the power to do something!” “You’ve got the power, so do something” “Uhhhhh…” ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/240 "2018-08-24T17:41:24Z")
Shodan, The problem isn’t that Democrats are blocking nuclear power. It’s that Republicans fail to even acknowledge that there is a problem which nuclear power can address. Democrats have their problems too of course. They have been hijacked by their extremes, although not to the degree that Republicans are, but you’re right that they aren’t truly ‘progressive’ in the sense of advocating for a purely science based society and are tied to various interest groups, including environmental groups which dislike nuclear power for reasons? Republicans though are so tied into industrial money that they aren’t even admitting that there is an issue. The Democrats’ problem is bad, but the Republicans’ problem is so much worse. The Democrats can have a discussion about it. The Republicans fail to even believe there is something to discuss. They are far different issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=13)