5 ms·

If eco warriors rationally believe this fear mania, then why are they not screaming for a Nuclear Energy revolution aka large scale builout over the next 20 yea

• triceratops 3y ago
  > when the 'eco warriors' stopped the buildout No one listens to "eco warriors" now, what makes you so sure they were the ones that stopped the buildout?
  • jasmer 3y ago
    Far from not being listened to - the green movement absolutely killed nuclear development and research in the 1980's and continue to fear monger about that issue, in places like Germany, the fear is generationally entrenched. The buildout curve grows rapidly in 1980's and 1980's and then drops to 0 in the early 1990's [1]. Were the USA to have 'kept the pace' on that buildout, 60-85% of current electricity generation in USA would be supplied by Nuclear, much as it is in France. The denialism of the green crowd is existentially damaging to their credibility. With respect to climate change, far from 'not being listened to' - they're the most influential NGO movement maybe in history (aside from religious movements) - and influence government policy all over the world, at the highest levels, towards a fundamental reshaping of the economic basis. Mixed in with the 'climate movement' are all sorts of other ideologies, particularly those against consumption etc. which gives you hints as to why they won't chose a relatively clear 'almost solution' to their supposedly existential problems. If there's a funny bit of history it's that Greenpeace has caused climate change. They saved the Whales, which is nice, but they killed Nuclear (and continue to hold it back) which is bad. Look at the data from the EIA. Look at those numbers, rate of buildout, and the % contribution made to US energy generation mix. Extend the growth phase (which stopped in 1990) out 20 more years. What is the result? The result is relatively easy reach to Paris targets. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-indus...
    • triceratops 3y ago
      The "green warriors" today want all of us to go vegan, fly less, bike everywhere, live in dense cities, and buy new clothes once every 5 years. How do you rate the chances of them succeeding at any of those things, like they supposedly "killed nuclear power"? Clearly someone else, with actual power and influence, wanted to kill nuclear. The environmentalists made for a convenient scapegoat. You fell for it too.
• digging 3y ago
  I don't know what this comment is even trying to say, let alone how it relates to the one it's responding to.
  • jasmer 3y ago
    It says what it says in plain English. If the claims of climate change people were true, that we are facing existential destruction in short order - then how is it possible they are denying a tried and true solution? We could have reached 'Paris targets' long ago were we to have kept deploying Nuclear installations, in the terms that we understood decades ago. With fewer accidents. Etc. The denial of a tried and true solution to this supposedly existential crisis destroys their credibility, and therefor their claims. That's not to say clams aren't valid, but that we can't trust the vanguard of the people behind the climate movement, obviously. It's incredibly naive (but maybe understandable) for people to not understand that the issue of climate change is hugely politicized and ideological, and because of that, it's hard to make heads or tails of a lot of information. People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner.
    • digging 3y ago
      > It says what it says in plain English. But its overall meaning was not clear, and it context was not clear. English isn't machine code. "Loopholes work under tyrants" is a valid and meaningful English statement but it doesn't have any meaning to this conversation and if I said it as part of my argument you would not know how it contributed to my argument; it is effectively nonsense. > People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner. That's a complete non-sequitur. But first, I apparently have to say that people can share one idea and not all their ideas. For example, we both probably believe that using the internet brings us value, since we're doing it. But we disagree on other things! So I wouldn't call us "the internet people." Similarly, there's no such thing as "climate change people." There are people who are concerned about climate change. Now, the fact that many of them teamed up to kill nuclear is indeed a big problem. But, it is not reasonable to dismiss the dangers of climate change just because that happened. As you say: we're probably worse off due to nuclear disinvestment... making the dangers even greater. So we still need to seriously work hard to address climate change rapidly. Even if it's too late for nuclear, climate change is still a problem. I don't know what your actual position is - what change you'd want to see in the world. None? Finally, I realize I'm probably wasting my time. When you talk about people "running around screaming that the sky is falling", that's a strawman, it's disingenuous, and it tells me you have no respect for a viewpoint opposing yours. Please take note that I'm not deploying hyperbole and metaphor to make your side sounds stupid, I'm just engaging your words and ideas.