4 ms·

>Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if trie

>Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if tried. And it would simply lead to conspiracy theories of big-nuclear trying to put lipstick on a pig - in the same way that 'clean coal' branding didn't really get any environmentalists/progressives on board for coal power.

jedberg 7y ago
Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :) I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. At the time, most people were for the estate tax, but once they came up with death tax, most people were against, including a lot of the most vocal proponents of the estate tax. It was literally the same tax with a name change, and most people were fooled. I think clean coal didn't take off because it was a straight up lie. With nuclear it's a bit different. There really is a new technology and it really is safer than the old stuff everyone is afraid of. It just needs better marketing.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :) I'm skeptical. I think most would see through the attempt. Regardless, no one is attempting it anyway. I think nuclear power has been effectively killed. There are scant new nuclear projects on the horizon, with more shutting down then coming online. The industry is overregulated. FUD from environmentalist and progressives has traction. At best nuclear may get a passing reference in mainstream press when talking about solutions to global warming. I think we're toast. If we doubled down on nuclear in the 60s/70s/80s to the same extent that France did, we would have prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted, and maybe bought ourselves an extra century to figure out alternatives. As it stands, it's looking pretty bleak. The irony is that in hindsight conservative denialism of global warming will take a backseat to anti-nuclear policies when we get judged for our choices by our descendants. >I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. I'd like to push back on that. I've heard that reasoning before and I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe it was PR that did it either, rather there was a cultural shift in the 80s and 90s that embraced privatization and free market policies (not just in US, but UK, Canada, and many other nations). This was a pendulum swing from the 60s and 70s when protectionism and over-regulation and high taxation was fashionable. Besides, there are good ideological reasons for conservatives to not support the estate tax, regardless of the label. Conservatives will tend to oppose taxes and push for tax cuts, but the estate tax provides extra incentive because it can be seen as double-dipping for the government.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Conservatives always opposed the estate tax, but it was getting liberals onboard that was special. Getting liberals to support a tax cut on the wealthiest people was quite a win for the GOP.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      I see what you mean and obviously I agree that something changed. I still think a better explanation is that the country became more conservative when it came to economic policy because it wasn't just the attitudes around the estate tax that changed but rather the entire approach to economic policy. Things like wage and price controls, high income tax rates, and protectionist policies were a thing in the 70s, but became unpalatable in the 80s and 90s.

jedberg 7y ago

Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :) I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. At the time, most people were for the estate tax, but once they came up with death tax, most people were against, including a lot of the most vocal proponents of the estate tax. It was literally the same tax with a name change, and most people were fooled. I think clean coal didn't take off because it was a straight up lie. With nuclear it's a bit different. There really is a new technology and it really is safer than the old stuff everyone is afraid of. It just needs better marketing.

macspoofing 7y ago
>Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :) I'm skeptical. I think most would see through the attempt. Regardless, no one is attempting it anyway. I think nuclear power has been effectively killed. There are scant new nuclear projects on the horizon, with more shutting down then coming online. The industry is overregulated. FUD from environmentalist and progressives has traction. At best nuclear may get a passing reference in mainstream press when talking about solutions to global warming. I think we're toast. If we doubled down on nuclear in the 60s/70s/80s to the same extent that France did, we would have prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted, and maybe bought ourselves an extra century to figure out alternatives. As it stands, it's looking pretty bleak. The irony is that in hindsight conservative denialism of global warming will take a backseat to anti-nuclear policies when we get judged for our choices by our descendants. >I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. I'd like to push back on that. I've heard that reasoning before and I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe it was PR that did it either, rather there was a cultural shift in the 80s and 90s that embraced privatization and free market policies (not just in US, but UK, Canada, and many other nations). This was a pendulum swing from the 60s and 70s when protectionism and over-regulation and high taxation was fashionable. Besides, there are good ideological reasons for conservatives to not support the estate tax, regardless of the label. Conservatives will tend to oppose taxes and push for tax cuts, but the estate tax provides extra incentive because it can be seen as double-dipping for the government.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Conservatives always opposed the estate tax, but it was getting liberals onboard that was special. Getting liberals to support a tax cut on the wealthiest people was quite a win for the GOP.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    I see what you mean and obviously I agree that something changed. I still think a better explanation is that the country became more conservative when it came to economic policy because it wasn't just the attitudes around the estate tax that changed but rather the entire approach to economic policy. Things like wage and price controls, high income tax rates, and protectionist policies were a thing in the 70s, but became unpalatable in the 80s and 90s.