# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/101 "2018-08-18T05:56:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/Empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html) > Mind you, the ski-blue and light red color areas are the regions of uncertainty, as one can notice the temperature where we should be if no anthropologic factors where there is well below the uncertainty range. We are currently at about one degree of an increase in surface temperature thanks to industrialization. Thanks for the link. > [@wolfpup](#): > > So, when it comes to climate policy, the US should totally ignore the warnings of science and recklessly forge ahead with business as usual, destroying the environment with impunity? In particular, it should avoid any kind of collaboration with other countries to achieve common goals for the planet? I think we should work with other countries. As long as the framework is advantageous. Which as a powerful country we could get. > [@](#): > > OK. We can use the same template to help out with other decisions, too, like stockpiling the maximum possible quantity of nuclear weapons and refusing to engage in any kind of arms limitation talks. > > That actually makes sense, because when one of these nuclear powers blows up the world we won’t have to worry about the devastated environment any more. > > That’s why it’s taken quite a few years to answer it. But I’m going to guess that you haven’t read the current release of the IPCC reports and don’t intend to, and prefer to pretend that we don’t have enough information to guide actionable policy. I think it’s important to act now actually. I’m not in favor of oceans rising and increased ocean acidity. I think the science skepticism is one of the biggest issues with the Republican Party. ---
**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 18, 2018, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/102 "2018-08-18T05:57:52Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Hopefully in 30-40 years we can settle on what Pluto is. > > Concerning climate change though? I think that there is a hesitancy to be bound by international agreements that will constrain US economic power and political sovereignty. :dubious: Like if independence from foreign oil and big energy companies is not a conservative idea too. > **[These conservatives are making a case for clean energy](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/conservatives-want-make-case-clean-energy)** > > When President Donald Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, it was a major blow to the renewable energy industry because of the growing market in America. Now the Trump administration is also making... > [@](#): > > On October 5, the Christian Coalition and the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform (YC4ER) hosted the third annual Conservative Clean Energy Summit in Washington D.C. More than 300 conservatives from across the nation met with industry leaders, activists, businesses and members of Congress to send a message to everyone in the energy debate. > > “Clean energy isn’t a left or right issue. It’s an American issue,” said Angel Garcia, the national outreach director for the YC4ER. “We need leaders out there to explain that this is something that will make America better, stronger and independent.” > Clean energy is pragmatic and consistent.” – Senator Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota > > Coming together as conservatives for clean energy doesn’t exactly separate them from the larger dialogue, Garcia said. It just provides more perspectives and additional arguments in support of renewables. Key themes shared throughout the summit included “home-grown” energy, job growth and national security. > > Energy independence was one of Trump’s keynotes during his presidential campaign. However, what he had in mind was producing more coal, oil and gas in the United States instead of relying on renewable energy or foreign sources of fossil fuels. The summit speakers reiterated several times that the nation’s energy independence won’t succeed by using fossil fuels. > > “There’s a maximum need on what we can always provide, and the U.S. is one of the greatest consumers of energy,” Senator Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, said in his speech. “Clean energy is pragmatic and consistent.” > [@](#): > > Clean energy as a solution to help impoverished people has also been considered for certain national security crises. After Hurricane Maria left calamity in Puerto Rico, companies like Tesla and the German energy storage manufacturer sonnen jumped to offer assistance in transforming the island’s energy infrastructure. One route would be through microgrids, which would use small-scale solar panel or wind generator arrays that can quickly restore localized power during outages. Places in urgent need, such as hospitals or cell towers, can be brought online quickly through these microgrid energy systems. > > For the conservatives at this summit, these success stories and accomplishments make America great. To accomplish the Trump administration’s sentiment, leading the world in the energy sector and empowering all Americans is our best bet, Pinion explained. “When you’re talking about increasing prosperity for all individuals, clean energy must be at the forefront of the conversation,” he said. ---
**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 18, 2018, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/103 "2018-08-18T07:28:30Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > Seems to me to be the primary drive of both republicans and democrats, but then this is a far-left board so I expect to get shut down on that opinion. I’m curious how you come to this conclusion. Like, there’s a legitimate case to be made that the main thing driving many Trump supporters is pissing off the “other” of the liberals. They’re quite overt about it - “triggering the snowflakes” is such a common theme on right-wing websites that it’s virtually impossible to avoid. What’s the equivalent on the liberal side? A few people acting with cruel schadenfreude when they read stories about Trump supporters who didn’t realize that they were on Obamacare? ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/104 "2018-08-18T10:23:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > What’s the equivalent on the liberal side? A few people acting with cruel schadenfreude when they read stories about Trump supporters who didn’t realize that they were on Obamacare? This goes beyond the topic of this thread, but since you asked … [off-topic answer] First of all, I don’t see any evidence that there is a liberal side and a conservative side. People are too diverse to fit into two tiny boxes. But it’s a perception shared by enough people (particularly the more vocal ones) across the spectrum to turn every issue into a partisan one in the public discourse. The division of political _power_ in the USA in two parties facilitates the idea that political thinking is equally divided. But while the most public displays of partisanship are unlikely representative of convictions shared by the majority, they do constitute, consolidate and reinforce the image of those “sides” - for the people who care about the issue currently on view as well as everyone else listening. If we continue to vocalize partisanship on every issue long and strong enough, it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. And since you asked about an equivalent on the “liberal side” (though I’m not quite sure where you position it): in my mind, their outspoken agents tend to characterize anyone who isn’t on their side as fascists or Nazis - in other words, they don’t see a political opposition at work but evil itself. Which might also explain why the ones afflicted by this idea can’t abide to hear any opposition speak at all; a need to silence the ideologically unpure is a disturbing tendency among the loudest voices on the left. You can see this happening on colleges and the entire public discourse, including this forum. And while it’s not fair, I think this tendency is the main reason for the willingness among conservatives to box all liberals and lefties once again into a neat “neo marxist” drawer - which turns political opposition into a metaphysical struggle for the “soul of the nation”. Of course, the partisan voices argue that they have plenty of reason to think like that - and act on it. And, not surprisingly, the loudest among those sides start to devour their own children. Hallelujah. [/off-topic answer] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/105 "2018-08-18T14:28:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Why bother? I have nothing against nuclear power, but it seems to have plateaued in terms of cost and efficiency, while solar especially is getting cheaper and more widespread. And it is working, especially in California: > > From [here.](https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/20/california-green-energy-goal-2020/) > Relatively few houses in my affluent neighborhood have solar cells, so there is plenty of room for growth. It’s not politics, it is economics and technology. Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear. But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 18, 2018, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/106 "2018-08-18T14:49:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear. > > But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics. You can keep repeating that over and over, but that [doesn’t make it true](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf). Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/107 "2018-08-18T15:04:41Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > You can keep repeating that over and over, but that [doesn’t make it true](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf). > > Stranger Don’t be shy, quote the relevant lines from your cite to support your position. After that you can address the efficiency issues with solar cells compared to nuclear power. Solar cells have a known problem with night-time production which is when we will need power to recharge EV’s so we can save the planet from climate change. The solution is to make twice the number of solar cells and batteries necessary to cover electrical usage. No problem, China’s coal-fired industries should take care of demand. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/108 "2018-08-18T15:39:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > So…you trust the Chinese (or at least won’t ‘rag’ on them) because they signed a treaty? You do realize that they have signed a lot of treaties and then basically broken them, right? No, I didn’t realize that, but my info isn’t up-to-date. Have they broken even more agreements recently than the U.S.A. has? > [@XT](#): > > Also, their emissions are basically the same as the next 5 nations combined. That includes the US. Two points: (1) It was “more than next _4_ combined” a few years ago but, _ **because China’s CO2 emissions didn’t grow in 2014-2017** _, is now only “more than next 3 combined.” But where did you get “next _ **5** _ combined”? 😕 (2) China has more goats than any other country, more sheep than any other country, consumes more ice cream than any other country; need I go on? It’s only two in number of automobiles, behind the U.S.A., but I think China has more red houses than any other country, and makes more Trump-themed apparel than any other country including the U.S. China is a big country. Qatar has 2½ times the per capita emissions of U.S., which in turn has about twice the per capita emissions of China but, since Qatar emits less than 1% of China in absolute numbers, they’re fine in your opinion? New York emits more CO2 than Alabama does, so, in your opinion, is it New York rather than Alabama that should cut back? Even though Alabama’s per capita number is three times New York’s? _ **China leads the world in solar energy** _; almost twice Japan or Germany or U.S.A. Most of the world’s top manufacturers of solar panels are Chinese companies. China is also the global market leader in hydropower, bioenergy, and _ **electric vehicles** _. China has made fighting pollution a priority. While still too high, the SO2 levels of Beijing’s air are only a third what they once were. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/109 "2018-08-18T15:49:46Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > Seems to me to be the primary drive of both republicans and democrats, but then this is a far-left board so I expect to get shut down on that opinion. The idea that the Board is “left leaning” has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. **XT** is active in this thread—he’s no leftist—and at least 3 rightists are posting. Does the center-left outnumber the right-wing here? Sure, but that’s true of almost any intellectual grouping. And _ **“far-left”** _? There are some Bernie Bros at SDMB, if that’s what you mean, but I don’t think they’re a majority. I’d be curious to hear specific examples of thinking you call “far-left” (or “far-right” for that matter). Is it “leftist” to think temperatures are rising, and then “far-leftist” to think the warming is caused by man? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/110 "2018-08-18T16:35:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear. > > But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics. > > Regards, > Shodan These are the trends I see: 1 - Efficiency increasing 2 - Costs decreasing To say it “will not” seems to imply a limit that isn’t apparent in the trends. Is there some physical limit that will prevent the cost from dropping further? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/111 "2018-08-18T16:47:27Z")
> [@gytalf2000](#): > > I grew up in a very conservative church (the Churches of Christ) – I never really bought into the fundamentalist mindset, myself, though – and I can attest to the fact that a lot of these folks really don’t think that global warming is ever going to be a problem. They don’t trust scientists; hell, they prefer their so-called “holy book” over sciency facts, and reject evolution and the modern world in general. > > I actually had one guy tell me a few years ago that worrying about global warming (or any type of environmental issue, for that matter) was indicative of “lack of faith” in God. Because God told man to go forth, multiply, and conquer, and we better damm well do that, come hell or high water. Any so-called problems will be overcome either through sheer human inventiveness, or rendered moot by the second comin’ of Christ hisself! I think that’s a big problem with the latter-day (i.e. post-1980s) Republican/Conservative side of things. They’ve hitched their wagon so tightly to the conservative religious fringe that points of religious doctrine have become intertwined with the party platforms. So you get idiocy like the notion that people have to choose between Jesus or science encoded in the political party’s doctrine. And then you have 40% (not necessarily the same people either) who will vote for that party, come hell or high water and who accept what they say without thinking it, because you know, the Democrats are the enemy, regardless of what they say. From what I gather, before the 1990s, it was more of a philosophical difference- there was still the same divide, but it didn’t have the religious flavor it does today, and I think that may be what makes a lot of the difference. It winds a lot of people in tighter than they otherwise might be, for fear of religious offense. ---
**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 18, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/112 "2018-08-18T18:12:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Don’t be shy, quote the relevant lines from your cite to support your position. > > After that you can address the efficiency issues with solar cells compared to nuclear power. Solar cells have a known problem with night-time production which is when we will need power to recharge EV’s so we can save the planet from climate change. > > The solution is to make twice the number of solar cells and batteries necessary to cover electrical usage. No problem, China’s coal-fired industries should take care of demand. The linked report is from the US Energy Information Administration entitled “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018”. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) estimates for different sources are presented in Table 1a and Table 1b for capacity-weighted average and unweighted average for new sources coming online in 2022. The report is in plain language which you can read for yourself. The LCOE is in terms of FY2017 USD per megawatt, so on a cost basis it doesn’t matter that solar power can only be generated in daytime, although from a baseload standpoint that is less of an issue than you make of it because peak electrical power demand also occurs in daytime to early evening. But there is another logistical issue to consider; a conventional (pressurized or boiling water reactor) nuclear fission power plant can take five years or more to design, site, construct, and certify for operation even without significant delays. Light water reactors also require enriched uranium fuel; the United States has neither high grade uranium ore deposits, nor even enough enrichment capacity to sustain current operating fission reactors; we use enriched uranium and mixed oxide fuel from foreign sources which is costly and a substantial national security risk that would only increase with greater dependence upon nuclear fission. Standing up new refining and enrichment capability to support a multiple factor increase in nuclear fission power generation would be the work of a decade or more even if we can find someplace to site the facility. (Previous enrichment facilities have required extensive cleanup and remediation, and communities are naturally reluctant to be home to one even despite the well-paying jobs it brings.) On the other hand, photovoltaic (PV) solar can be deployed nearly as fast as panels can be fabricated and shipped. Aside from an environmental impact statement, there are almost no concerns about local pollution, no ongoing fuel processing costs, and is enormously scaleable. The downsides to solar–that it requires a large footprint per kWh of power production, the limited lifespan of PV solar panels, that it is not well suited to high latitude regions, the lack of baseload capability and need for external power storage for nighttime demand–prevent it from being a complete solution but in terms of rapidly offsetting the most polluting fossil fuels it is by far the quickest and cheapest to deploy in the near term, which also gives time and space to develop and approve more advanced fission power generation designs that require less fuel processing and enrichment and generate less overall waste while generating more energy from fuel elements through partial or complete fuel burnup. As for China, they are investing heavily in renewables and solar in particular because they understand both the costs and security risks of coal and oil are just going to increase as time goes on. Their increase in solar power generation capability in 2016 was greater than the increase of all other nations combined. And PV solar panel fabrication not only has a lower energy cost associated with it per kW of generation capacity than the end-to-end nuclear fuel cycle but also actually has a lower carbon footprint than that associated with the fabrication of nuclear power plants (which require a lot of concrete, steel piping, and transportation carbon costs in addition to fuel mining, milling, and enrichment). China has the goal to be energy secure through a combination of strategic alliances and transitioning to an energy infrastructure that is largely renewable and ultimately not dependent upon any external energy supplies for critical functions. They look to be sitting pretty while the rest of the world runs down the clock on oil and readily available natural gas, which is the smart play looking ahead thirty or forty years. If we really wanted to be energy secure, and oh by the way bring back some of those lost manufacturing jobs, we’d be doing strategic investment in domestic manufacture of PV solar panels and associated hardware, not chopping off mountaintops for coal and fracking the shit out of low yield tar sands as our energy plan of the future. > [@septimus](#): > > The idea that the Board is “left leaning” has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. **XT** is active in this thread—he’s no leftist—and at least 3 rightists are posting. Does the center-left outnumber the right-wing here? Sure, but that’s true of almost any intellectual grouping. The crowd of people bitching about how “left leaning” this board is come from the view that anyone left of Newt Gingrich is a flaming socialist, which reflects the fact that the once-pragmatic Republican party has been hijacked by Tea Party zealots who have shifted the perception so far to the political right that even Reagan would protest in the streets with the pussy hat people. With few exceptions, those self-identified conservatives who pisstake about the liberal bent are doing so to avoid making substantive arguments or provide evidence to back up their claims, often resorting to innuendo and baiting rhetoric to divert a discussion not going their way. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/113 "2018-08-18T20:21:25Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > But there is another logistical issue to consider; a conventional (pressurized or boiling water reactor) nuclear fission power plant can take five years or more to design, site, construct, and certify for operation even without significant delays. Light water reactors also require enriched uranium fuel; the United States has neither high grade uranium ore deposits, nor even enough enrichment capacity to sustain current operating fission reactors; we use enriched uranium and mixed oxide fuel from foreign sources which is costly and a substantial national security risk that would only increase with greater dependence upon nuclear fission. Standing up new refining and enrichment capability to support a multiple factor increase in nuclear fission power generation would be the work of a decade or more even if we can find someplace to site the facility. (Previous enrichment facilities have required extensive cleanup and remediation, and communities are naturally reluctant to be home to one even despite the well-paying jobs it brings.) The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that’s a red herring. They’re virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They’re a construction project just like anything else. 'the fastest alternative to coal plants are natural gas plants which take little time to transition over too. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > As for China, they are investing heavily in renewables and solar in particular because they understand both the costs and security risks of coal and oil are just going to increase as time goes on. [uh huh.](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/) We;ll just forget the 2 power plants a week they were building in 2016. ---
**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 18, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/114 "2018-08-18T20:41:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that’s a red herring. They’re virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They’re a construction project just like anything else. > > 'the fastest alternative to coal plants are natural gas plants which take little time to transition over too. > **[Renewable Energy Is Much Faster To Install & More Scalable Than Nuclear...](https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/28/renewable-energy-much-faster-install-scalable-nuclear-power/)** > > One major advantage renewable energy has over fossil fuels and nuclear power is that it can typically be installed much faster. Nuclear power plants can require 5–15 years to complete and some have taken 20 or more. Constructing a new coal power... > [@](#): > > Myth: We need to build more nuclear power if we want to cut electricity emissions quickly and turn off coal and natural gas power plants. > > Short answer: Renewables can grow fast because they can be installed practically everywhere rapidly and simultaneously. Renewable capacity in the magnitude of 1 TW can in principle be added every year. Germany installed 3 GW of PV in one single month in December 2011. Germany has roughly 1% of the world’s population. So, if the entire world installs only 20% the amount of PV that Germany did 5 years ago, it would be at 720 GW per year. At a single utility-scale-PV plant, 120 MWp per month was installed. If only 10% of all cities worldwide installed utility-scale-solar at this scale at the same time, it would lead to approximately the same number just for utility-scale-solar (the world has 4,412 cities with a population of at least 150,000). In fact, if the world only installs one PV module per person per year, this already leads to 1,850 GW per year. Nuclear power plants, meanwhile, take several years to build — and are much more expensive. > [@Magiver](#): > > [uh huh.](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/) We;ll just forget the 2 power plants a week they were building in 2016. > [@same article](#): > > On the other hand, preliminary information on China’s new energy five-year plan broke out yesterday from a government-controlled media outlet, indicating a more complete ban on new permitting will be forthcoming. The article also makes clear that most of the coal plants are headed for a huge fall as even with no clampdown there is an over production of them. Also a lot of other energy projects not related to coal are bound to cause most of the new coal plants to fail. > [@](#): > > ‘Winter is coming’ > > Chinese energy industry publication Southern Energy Observer recently collected comments on the overcapacity situation from market participants across the country, and one phrase got repeated half a dozen times: the power industry’s “winter is coming”. > > A commentator from the northeast said that the industry had anticipated a central government clampdown on new permits and rushed to grab permits at the last minute, with a lot of poorly planned projects going into construction. > > A Cantonese reader noted that nuclear, hydro, wind and solar are competing with thermal power, resulting in a lot of existing units standing idle. Yet, more coal power units are under construction, surely worsening the situation and risking waste of capital. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/115 "2018-08-18T21:03:12Z")
Man, I get so tired of people looking for “the solution” (and this is, so far as I can tell, a truly bipartisan problem). Those who say that solar power is the solution to green energy generation are just as wrong as those who say that nuclear is the solution. The fact is, we don’t need one solution. We need a whole bunch of things which, collectively, add up to a solution. Let’s make more solar panels, **and** more wind turbines, **and** more geothermal plants, **and** more nuclear plants, **and** increase the efficiency of our appliances and vehicles, **and** research and develop new technologies. We’re not limited to just doing one of those things, and it’s highly unlikely that any one would be enough. Now, doing **everything**? That can be enough. ---
**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 18, 2018, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/116 "2018-08-18T21:15:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that’s a red herring. They’re virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They’re a construction project just like anything else. Not true. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not certified any design of either a fast neutron reactor or small modular power reactor, and while there are some proof of concept demonstrations of both no full scale complete design exists for any Generation IV nuclear fission reactor. Getting a new type design certified is viewed as a major hurdle by potential operators, hence why their is little serious private interest in developing Generation IV designs for commercial power generation despite the efficiency improvements. No one has said that “solar panel farms spring into action” by any magical process; what has been stated is that PV solar panels can be deployed nearly as quickly as they can be fabricated and transported with scaleability down to the level of the individual consumer. Since they produce no waste products or emissions, even getting a siting approval is a straightforward process compared to any kind of natural gas power plant. With thermal solar, up to the level of a single installation being able to provide power in the several thousand megawatt-hour/day range. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/117 "2018-08-18T22:51:10Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Not true. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not certified any design of either a fast neutron reactor or small modular power reactor, and while there are some proof of concept demonstrations of both no full scale complete design exists for any Generation IV nuclear fission reactor. Getting a new type design certified is viewed as a major hurdle by potential operators, hence why their is little serious private interest in developing Generation IV designs for commercial power generation despite the efficiency improvements. There are type 3 designs approved and ready to go. Beyond that all it takes is political willpower to stop the economic extremists from delaying the process of type 4 approval. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > No one has said that “solar panel farms spring into action” by any magical process; what has been stated is that PV solar panels can be deployed nearly as quickly as they can be fabricated and transported with scaleability down to the level of the individual consumer. Since they produce no waste products or emissions, even getting a siting approval is a straightforward process compared to any kind of natural gas power plant. With thermal solar, up to the level of a single installation being able to provide power in the several thousand megawatt-hour/day range. > > Stranger natural gas power plants are upgrades to existing coal plants. the environmental approval consists of agreeing to less Co2 produced. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/118 "2018-08-19T00:40:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The idea that the Board is “left leaning” has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center. Some interesting polls here by members of this very community: 134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463) Most people think Clinton’s poll numbers were underestimated (40 vs 15) [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7863](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7863) 158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7882](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7882) Even after the election, more people here think the EC would defect to Clinton [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7920](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7920) 86 to 4 on not watching the Republican National Convention [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7769](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7769) ---
**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 19, 2018, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/119 "2018-08-19T04:15:58Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center. There is IMHO a bit of that, but I think that you are not taking into account that our conservatives are different. And I base that on another thread where I did see that the majority of the conservatives did not favor Trump in the past election. Now on many occasions they fall in line with their leaders as good Republicans do, but it is clear to me that they should rather not have the current leadership. But I do think that a lot of what we are seeing, and this subject is part of it, is that organizations like the press are finding out that misinformation is becoming normalized. In past elections mayor newspapers in the USA usually endorsed the Republican candidate, that changed after the Clinton years when newspapers began to endorse both the Democrat and the Republican with similar numbers. > **[Clinton Leads Trump — And Obama And Reagan — In The Newspaper Endorsement Race](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-leads-trump-and-obama-and-reagan-in-the-newspaper-endorsement-race/)** > > “This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates —… Obama began to change that when he clearly got more endorsements than McCain, but in 2012 Romney got close to Obama’s numbers. And then we have 2016, Almost all newspapers endorsed Clinton, what many do forget here is that many of those were of conservative bent. But the main reason why I do think that the newspaper endorsement item is important here is because 538 did notice like I did that politics was not the main driver for that endorsement, and so I do think that what you describe is IMHO what does happen when on a board that was a bit leaning to the left but geared towards evidence based information, [finds that the current conservative leadership in Washington is running with the idiot ball.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/01/its-not-okay-how-clueless-donald-trump-is-about-climate-change) > [@](#): > > What accounts for this blowout in newspaper endorsements? It wouldn’t be 2016 without mentioning Trump’s pet theory: “Media rigging election!” The Trump campaign and pro-Trump media outlets have argued that there is a clear media bias. They claim not only that the media is liberal — journalists, as a group, do lean left — but that the media is explicitly working with the Clinton campaign (and other entities) to defeat Trump.4 > > **But there’s a simpler explanation than deliberate rigging. Reading through the endorsements, I found surprisingly little mention of the candidates’ ideologies or even policy preferences. Instead, many editorial boards focused on the personal qualities and histories of the two candidates. As Newsday wrote of Trump:** > > > [@](#): > > > > He has an astonishing lack of knowledge about the world and about how government works. Worse, he shows no curiosity to learn. His stunning refusal Wednesday night to say he will accept the results of the election undermines one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And he has no peer in his ability to spout untruths. If that weren’t enough, his temperament disqualifies him. He wants to be president like it’s a trophy to be won, and he would have others do the actual work. That is not leadership. > > **So perhaps Clinton’s unparalleled landslide in newspaper endorsements is reflective not of ideological bias, but of general agreement among journalists — conservative as well as liberal — as to the qualities that make a candidate fit or unfit for the presidency.** ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/120 "2018-08-19T05:43:30Z")
I voted for Gary Johnson, so feel like a bit of an outsider. My state (Nevada) went for Clinton. I must admit that I enjoyed election night seeing most of the media talking heads simply break down as it became clear that their predictions were wildly wrong. I see a real split in the coasts and the interior and those crowds don’t seem to mix. People need to drive across the country sometime without using the interstate highways. What really surprises me is that people are so affected (or think they are) by who is president. I am a small business owner and my life has not changed considerably through the GWB, Obama and Trump years. Furthermore a newspaper endorsement has zero influence on me and it scares me to think that it may sway some people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=7)