4 ms·
> the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power This is nonsense. In nations where opposition to nuclear power is strong (like mine, Aus), there is not a
by crispinb 7y ago
> the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power
This is nonsense. In nations where opposition to nuclear power is strong (like mine, Aus), there is not a left-right divide amongst the general population. People just don't want it, end of story, irrational or not.
There is a huge divide regarding electricity supply in general here - ie. the right wants coal, the left renewables. But neither want nuclear. There have been some pro-nuclear political elite lobbies, and there is a slight rightward slant there for sure, but this is entirely ignored by the general populace, left & right alike, that just doesn't want nuclear.
- Ericson2314 7y agoAs a leftist, I do concede anti-nuclear was a 60s new left thing that then went mainstream. It may not still be a leftist position today, but it was then. Also, it does fall squarely on one side of the industrialist side of the industrialist-populist divide of the right.
- crispinb 7y agoMaybe I should have quoted more of the gp: > .. that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels My point isn't that 'leftists' (a decreasingly useful categorisation in any case) aren't anti-nuclear. It's that this anti-nuclear stance has been causally impotent in most of the nations that haven't chosen to build much nuclear capacity. Australia is a great case in point - even its 'leftist' party is very right-wing (pro-coal, pro-asylum-seeker torture, etc), yet the population, right and left alike, simply will not countenance nuclear power. There's a great tendency for political pundits to confuse the positions and divisions of lobbyists, politicians and insiders with those of the population at large. Anyone attributing lack of nuclear capacity to 'leftists' is doing just that.