3 ms·

It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admissi

It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held No, that really isn't true. The extremist position is continuing regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not acting back in the 19th before there was any knowledge or evidence is not really comparable. It was Thatcher and Reagan that did so much to get the agreement for world phase out of CFCs in 1987. A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. Thatcher was remarkably well informed in the earliest days of climate science. Also one of the first to call for global action on climate. So despite being of an anti-regulation mindset she was happy to promote and implement strong regulation to save our skins. From her speech to the UN in 1989: "What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not." She lost interest, or time, for the environment later in her premiership as it became ever more inept on most issues, caught up with in-party fighting (often EU related), and stupid ideas like poll tax. Yet her early and mid term record on climate and pollution is better than any since. > we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option. The poor will be more severely affected by climate changes than anyone.

roenxi 8y ago
> A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people where the cost of inaction obviously exceeds the cost of dealing with it. Global warming poses a very real threat to the environment and a high likelihood of change. It remains opaque whether the costs of dealing with that change are higher than preventing that change. We can guarantee the academics have no idea on that one economically speaking; their record of forecasting in that arena is just as bad as everyone elses. Historically, the proposed costs of preventing change have been enormous. And, personal pet peeve, the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW. So it can't be that threatening to them.
- viraptor 8y ago
  > the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now". The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nuclear has remained by far the most cost-effective choice. If they were serious about the risk of climate change then there would be massive pushes for nuclear power coming out of the green factions. I havn't seen it; only in isolated cases (tending towards engineers and scientists who care about the environment). The mainstream environmentalists tend to be in favour solar and wind. If there is time to let perfect be the enemy of good enough then the threat can't be that urgent. The right wing is perfectly reasonable in dragging their heels. Look how successful that strategy has been so far; solar is almost economic on its own merits.
    - viraptor 8y ago
      > but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. The topics are orthogonal. You can have independent opinions about either of them. There's a group with common opinions on both, but that doesn't mean you can't place yourself in in another position. But you don't get all the choices you want. For some reason no party around me wants replacement with nuclear power as a policy, so the next best thing is voting for those who care about doing anything: green, or some independent. I know a green's councillor who's pro-nuclear, but runs with greens so she can make any difference at all. I'm not sure what realistic option for a common person are you proposing that are better than "vote green and say their nuclear policy is shit"?
- 8y ago

roenxi 8y ago

> A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people where the cost of inaction obviously exceeds the cost of dealing with it. Global warming poses a very real threat to the environment and a high likelihood of change. It remains opaque whether the costs of dealing with that change are higher than preventing that change. We can guarantee the academics have no idea on that one economically speaking; their record of forecasting in that arena is just as bad as everyone elses. Historically, the proposed costs of preventing change have been enormous. And, personal pet peeve, the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW. So it can't be that threatening to them.

viraptor 8y ago
> the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.
- roenxi 8y ago
  I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now". The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nuclear has remained by far the most cost-effective choice. If they were serious about the risk of climate change then there would be massive pushes for nuclear power coming out of the green factions. I havn't seen it; only in isolated cases (tending towards engineers and scientists who care about the environment). The mainstream environmentalists tend to be in favour solar and wind. If there is time to let perfect be the enemy of good enough then the threat can't be that urgent. The right wing is perfectly reasonable in dragging their heels. Look how successful that strategy has been so far; solar is almost economic on its own merits.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. The topics are orthogonal. You can have independent opinions about either of them. There's a group with common opinions on both, but that doesn't mean you can't place yourself in in another position. But you don't get all the choices you want. For some reason no party around me wants replacement with nuclear power as a policy, so the next best thing is voting for those who care about doing anything: green, or some independent. I know a green's councillor who's pro-nuclear, but runs with greens so she can make any difference at all. I'm not sure what realistic option for a common person are you proposing that are better than "vote green and say their nuclear policy is shit"?
8y ago