9 ms·

Disclaimer. I’m a believer. But at this point isn’t there money behind both sides? I can’t imagine there wouldn’t be.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
The problem is the GOP is bought by fossil fuel, even though solar and wind and nuclear can lobby, they can not compete with record setting fossil profits in 2019 dollar amounts, thus the GOP will continue to get on their knees before this industry. We need to technologically destroy the profits that drive denialism. We need to make EVs, renewables, nuclear, etc. so much better that fossil can't compete... seems unlikely but tech may be the way.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  It's funny how perspectives can be so different. I feel like the GOP has been politely waiting for the DNC to come to terms with the fact that nuclear is really the only path forward to provide clean stable grid power.
  - colinator 7y ago
    Oh yeah, "politely waiting". You mean "denying the very existence of a problem". Meanwhile: is it? How do you know?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      The Republicans have been in support of nuclear power since before you ever even heard of "climate change." Back then we just called it "clean air." Are you interested in saving the planet, or are you interested in shaming Republicans? https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power.
      - colinator 7y ago
        Well, at this point the GOP is fully deserving of shame. Are they coming up with a grand plan to solve climate change with a new nuclear industry? If so, I'd love to hear it! But sadly, no: they're denying there's a problem in the first place.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow... Here's my real nuanced position. Republican's ability to make this happen is somewhat limited. They can fund research, they can work on environmental regulations that stifle nuclear power, they can subsidize the industry with loan guarantees, and they can work with other countries to promote nuclear power globally. They're doing all that. The remaining hurdles are largely social ones, and the liberals largely own the culture. We need Hollywood to make pro-nuclear media. We need movie stars to support it in their dumb speeches at awards ceremonies. This will help stave off some of the NIMBYism. We need the left to tell the Sierra Club and their ilk to stuff it and not sue every attempt to build a nuclear power plant into oblivion... those groups aren't going to listen to Republicans. It's totally true that the environment is not as high of a priority for Republicans as it is for Democrats. The GOP supports nuclear, but they're not going make it their top priority. As long as the Democrats continue to block it, as long as liberal groups make it tacitly impossible to even break ground on a nuclear plant, the GOP will just keep on happily burning coal. It's fine to think whatever you want about Republicans. I probably won't even disagree with you on most of your opinions. But this is a super easy major win for the environment that is being left on the table because the Democrats aren't willing to play ball.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Been of the same thought myself. I see tons of pro-nuke Republicans waiting for the other side to show up. Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country. This isn't a Burger King.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      I think we need to convince everyone to watch the Bill Gates documentary on Netflix. It's a not-so-subtle pitch to save the world with a gen 4 nuclear power plant that uses all that old nuclear waste as its fuel. So it's clean nuclear energy which is designed to be impossible to melt down and it literally eats the pollution from previous generation nuclear plants.
      - hirundo 7y ago
        figuratively eats
    - gotAnyEvidence 7y ago
      Can you provide a citation of “tons” of pro-nuke Republicans just waiting for Democrats to show up? Is there a bill they have tried to pass while controlling the Senate for 9 years? Did they write it into their budgets when they controlled all three branches?
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow... The remaining problems are local/social ones. We need the left to tell the Sierra club and their ilk not to sue every potential nuclear plant into oblivion. Hollywood largely owns the culture, we need them to make pro-nuclear media to help alleviate NIMBYism. The environment is not the GOP's issue. They GOP supports nuclear but without it they will happily keep burning coal. Nobody made the claim that nuclear power was a top priority for Republicans, the claim is that Republicans largely support nuclear and are going to keep burning coal while politely waiting for the Democrats to come around to the only real viable clean grid energy solution.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I thought the GOP position is that there is no evidence for climate change and all scientists working in this area are part of a liberal conspiracy that wants to get research money from the government. And even if there is climate change it’s either not man made or actually beneficial. In addition nothing can be done because that would kill the economy. I thought that’s the position.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      It's possible to hate the GOP, question their sanity, doubt their intentions, and yet still save the planet by working with them to implement clean nuclear power.
  - wk_end 7y ago
    Can you point to any source that indicates that the GOP, broadly, is pro-nuclear and anti-CO2 like your comment suggests? I'm skeptical but genuinely open to the possibility of being corrected.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994. It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phrase "climate change." If we had listened to Republicans back when it was just "clean air" we'd be in a much better position.
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        I don't recall the GOP advocating for nuclear power. They are less opposed to it but I have never heard that they actively pursued it.
        DFHippie 7y ago
        The GOP is interested in nuclear power because they know that since the 60s the Left has been against nuclear power. They bring it up as a way to gore the Left's ox, not as something they're actively pursuing to fight climate change. The policy they pursue is trolling and antagonizing their domestic enemies. Any effect of this on climate policy is incidental.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow...
- KevinEldon 7y ago
  The fossil fuel companies purchase politicians on both sides of the isle. Several prominent democrats, including former and current Democrat presidential candidates have ties with fossil fuel companies. Your argument is weakened by focusing on one political party.
  - ykevinator 7y ago
    Only one side acknowledges the existence of a problem.
    - KevinEldon 7y ago
      Not true. I’d agree it’s not a dogma for the Republicans and some Republicans deny or are skeptical of climate change or its human causes. Acknowledging the problem publicly and then working on behalf of fossil fuel companies however is dishonest and counterproductive to fighting climate change.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      ... thus making for the simulation of choice.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
Sure, but it's more interesting to find out who funds opposition to saving the world, right? If you look to see who funds climate change advocacy I expect you'll find governments doing most of it, with various ngo's doing most of the rest. Look at the ngo's and you'll find maybe soros or gates as prominent, but I don't think there will be much concentration: the environment movement is a real popular movement, not astroturf.
- LessDmesg 7y ago
  Nah, the "environment movement" as you call it is obviously funded by the governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. It's the governments giving away grant money to fund the "scientific consensus" (another ridiculous term). Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal from the "evil rich people", even if it means ending the Western Civilization.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
    I dont understand why you are downvoted.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - neffy 7y ago
    If a group of people is allowed to consistently get away with not paying their taxes, then fairly quickly, just by the operation of the monetary system, they will be the only people with any money. The real question is, are these really the people you want in control?
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      No, the real question is why do you think that "the government" is entitled to a percentage of your money, and why you think they can spend it better than the private sector.
pjmorris 7y ago
I imagine that the funding behind climate changed believers is dwarfed by the funding behind climate change deniers, primarily because we've been a fossil-fuel driven economy for about a century [0], and because it's a lot easier to sell fossil fuel products for a profit than it is to persuade a funder about climate change. But I don't know the empirical data, and could be wrong. [0] 'The Prize', Yergin
xhkkffbf 7y ago
Yes. I generally believe that CO2 causes problems -- although not, perhaps, to the extent claimed by some. Smart energy companies that produce less CO2 are definitely funding the other side. The Natural Gas folks, for instance, generate less CO2 than the coal companies (per BTU) and so, naturally, they're fueling the protest fires. Nuclear emits hardly any CO2 and so they're very anti-CO2. And certainly the wind and solar companies have everything to gain by sticking it to the fossil fuelers. Here's one link, perhaps biased, but still informative. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28/the-dirty-secret-of-renewables-advocates-is-that-they-protect-fossil-fuel-interests-not-the-climate/#1f6a6a141b07 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28...
jbeales 7y ago
The article _does_ say that the guy is planning on examining the funding on the other side of the movement, so we should get to see the pie chart for the other side eventually.

The problem is the GOP is bought by fossil fuel, even though solar and wind and nuclear can lobby, they can not compete with record setting fossil profits in 2019 dollar amounts, thus the GOP will continue to get on their knees before this industry. We need to technologically destroy the profits that drive denialism. We need to make EVs, renewables, nuclear, etc. so much better that fossil can't compete... seems unlikely but tech may be the way.

Consultant32452 7y ago
It's funny how perspectives can be so different. I feel like the GOP has been politely waiting for the DNC to come to terms with the fact that nuclear is really the only path forward to provide clean stable grid power.
- colinator 7y ago
  Oh yeah, "politely waiting". You mean "denying the very existence of a problem". Meanwhile: is it? How do you know?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    The Republicans have been in support of nuclear power since before you ever even heard of "climate change." Back then we just called it "clean air." Are you interested in saving the planet, or are you interested in shaming Republicans? https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power.
    - colinator 7y ago
      Well, at this point the GOP is fully deserving of shame. Are they coming up with a grand plan to solve climate change with a new nuclear industry? If so, I'd love to hear it! But sadly, no: they're denying there's a problem in the first place.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow... Here's my real nuanced position. Republican's ability to make this happen is somewhat limited. They can fund research, they can work on environmental regulations that stifle nuclear power, they can subsidize the industry with loan guarantees, and they can work with other countries to promote nuclear power globally. They're doing all that. The remaining hurdles are largely social ones, and the liberals largely own the culture. We need Hollywood to make pro-nuclear media. We need movie stars to support it in their dumb speeches at awards ceremonies. This will help stave off some of the NIMBYism. We need the left to tell the Sierra Club and their ilk to stuff it and not sue every attempt to build a nuclear power plant into oblivion... those groups aren't going to listen to Republicans. It's totally true that the environment is not as high of a priority for Republicans as it is for Democrats. The GOP supports nuclear, but they're not going make it their top priority. As long as the Democrats continue to block it, as long as liberal groups make it tacitly impossible to even break ground on a nuclear plant, the GOP will just keep on happily burning coal. It's fine to think whatever you want about Republicans. I probably won't even disagree with you on most of your opinions. But this is a super easy major win for the environment that is being left on the table because the Democrats aren't willing to play ball.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  Been of the same thought myself. I see tons of pro-nuke Republicans waiting for the other side to show up. Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country. This isn't a Burger King.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I think we need to convince everyone to watch the Bill Gates documentary on Netflix. It's a not-so-subtle pitch to save the world with a gen 4 nuclear power plant that uses all that old nuclear waste as its fuel. So it's clean nuclear energy which is designed to be impossible to melt down and it literally eats the pollution from previous generation nuclear plants.
    - hirundo 7y ago
      figuratively eats
  - gotAnyEvidence 7y ago
    Can you provide a citation of “tons” of pro-nuke Republicans just waiting for Democrats to show up? Is there a bill they have tried to pass while controlling the Senate for 9 years? Did they write it into their budgets when they controlled all three branches?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow... The remaining problems are local/social ones. We need the left to tell the Sierra club and their ilk not to sue every potential nuclear plant into oblivion. Hollywood largely owns the culture, we need them to make pro-nuclear media to help alleviate NIMBYism. The environment is not the GOP's issue. They GOP supports nuclear but without it they will happily keep burning coal. Nobody made the claim that nuclear power was a top priority for Republicans, the claim is that Republicans largely support nuclear and are going to keep burning coal while politely waiting for the Democrats to come around to the only real viable clean grid energy solution.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I thought the GOP position is that there is no evidence for climate change and all scientists working in this area are part of a liberal conspiracy that wants to get research money from the government. And even if there is climate change it’s either not man made or actually beneficial. In addition nothing can be done because that would kill the economy. I thought that’s the position.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    It's possible to hate the GOP, question their sanity, doubt their intentions, and yet still save the planet by working with them to implement clean nuclear power.
- wk_end 7y ago
  Can you point to any source that indicates that the GOP, broadly, is pro-nuclear and anti-CO2 like your comment suggests? I'm skeptical but genuinely open to the possibility of being corrected.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994. It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phrase "climate change." If we had listened to Republicans back when it was just "clean air" we'd be in a much better position.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I don't recall the GOP advocating for nuclear power. They are less opposed to it but I have never heard that they actively pursued it.
      - DFHippie 7y ago
        The GOP is interested in nuclear power because they know that since the 60s the Left has been against nuclear power. They bring it up as a way to gore the Left's ox, not as something they're actively pursuing to fight climate change. The policy they pursue is trolling and antagonizing their domestic enemies. Any effect of this on climate policy is incidental.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Here's just some of the stuff from the Trump administration and Republicans in the last few years: Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007 Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b... Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkowski-booker-and-13-colleagues-reintroduce https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow...
KevinEldon 7y ago
The fossil fuel companies purchase politicians on both sides of the isle. Several prominent democrats, including former and current Democrat presidential candidates have ties with fossil fuel companies. Your argument is weakened by focusing on one political party.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  Only one side acknowledges the existence of a problem.
  - KevinEldon 7y ago
    Not true. I’d agree it’s not a dogma for the Republicans and some Republicans deny or are skeptical of climate change or its human causes. Acknowledging the problem publicly and then working on behalf of fossil fuel companies however is dishonest and counterproductive to fighting climate change.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    ... thus making for the simulation of choice.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

Sure, but it's more interesting to find out who funds opposition to saving the world, right? If you look to see who funds climate change advocacy I expect you'll find governments doing most of it, with various ngo's doing most of the rest. Look at the ngo's and you'll find maybe soros or gates as prominent, but I don't think there will be much concentration: the environment movement is a real popular movement, not astroturf.

LessDmesg 7y ago
Nah, the "environment movement" as you call it is obviously funded by the governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. It's the governments giving away grant money to fund the "scientific consensus" (another ridiculous term). Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal from the "evil rich people", even if it means ending the Western Civilization.
- IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
  I dont understand why you are downvoted.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- neffy 7y ago
  If a group of people is allowed to consistently get away with not paying their taxes, then fairly quickly, just by the operation of the monetary system, they will be the only people with any money. The real question is, are these really the people you want in control?
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    No, the real question is why do you think that "the government" is entitled to a percentage of your money, and why you think they can spend it better than the private sector.

pjmorris 7y ago

I imagine that the funding behind climate changed believers is dwarfed by the funding behind climate change deniers, primarily because we've been a fossil-fuel driven economy for about a century [0], and because it's a lot easier to sell fossil fuel products for a profit than it is to persuade a funder about climate change. But I don't know the empirical data, and could be wrong. [0] 'The Prize', Yergin

xhkkffbf 7y ago

Yes. I generally believe that CO2 causes problems -- although not, perhaps, to the extent claimed by some. Smart energy companies that produce less CO2 are definitely funding the other side. The Natural Gas folks, for instance, generate less CO2 than the coal companies (per BTU) and so, naturally, they're fueling the protest fires. Nuclear emits hardly any CO2 and so they're very anti-CO2. And certainly the wind and solar companies have everything to gain by sticking it to the fossil fuelers. Here's one link, perhaps biased, but still informative. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28/the-dirty-secret-of-renewables-advocates-is-that-they-protect-fossil-fuel-interests-not-the-climate/#1f6a6a141b07 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28...

jbeales 7y ago

The article _does_ say that the guy is planning on examining the funding on the other side of the movement, so we should get to see the pie chart for the other side eventually.