3 ms·

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these p

by fma 6y ago

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democ...

briandear 6y ago
It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.” https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/ https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...
- spbaar 6y ago
  So I thought the consensus among economists, hn, etc was that the best most painless way to solve climate crisis is a carbon tax, that doesn't drastically alter the economy all at once. So what to do with the tax money? Presumably invest in green energy. A lot of that can help people directly, like solar and nuclear jobs, and indirectly, like better trains, or subsidies for the poor on any essential goods that price was raised by the carbon tax a lot. We can probably find a use for all the money raised by placing a carbon tax at the rate needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if we put the tax at the right rate and have some money afterwards, what's wrong with free college?
- ant6n 6y ago
  That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.
  - ergl 6y ago
    The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school strikes last year, and also concerns the UN: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/climate-justice/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima.... See also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ > We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments. No matter how you put it, climate change is completely unsolvable without politcs, because solving climate change requires, most of all, cooperation between countries.
    - ant6n 6y ago
      My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude, which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.
      - ergl 6y ago
        Ah, my bad, I totally misread your comment then. I agree with you, that comment is next-level denial.
- triceratops 6y ago
  "The world is dying but I think saving it would be tantamount to communism, which is evil because it's killed millions." Excellent logicking. You'll take basically any excuse to not do anything about climate, right?

by fma 6y ago

briandear 6y ago

It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.” https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/ https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...

spbaar 6y ago
So I thought the consensus among economists, hn, etc was that the best most painless way to solve climate crisis is a carbon tax, that doesn't drastically alter the economy all at once. So what to do with the tax money? Presumably invest in green energy. A lot of that can help people directly, like solar and nuclear jobs, and indirectly, like better trains, or subsidies for the poor on any essential goods that price was raised by the carbon tax a lot. We can probably find a use for all the money raised by placing a carbon tax at the rate needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if we put the tax at the right rate and have some money afterwards, what's wrong with free college?
ant6n 6y ago
That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.
- ergl 6y ago
  The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school strikes last year, and also concerns the UN: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/climate-justice/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima.... See also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ > We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments. No matter how you put it, climate change is completely unsolvable without politcs, because solving climate change requires, most of all, cooperation between countries.
  - ant6n 6y ago
    My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude, which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.
    - ergl 6y ago
      Ah, my bad, I totally misread your comment then. I agree with you, that comment is next-level denial.
triceratops 6y ago
"The world is dying but I think saving it would be tantamount to communism, which is evil because it's killed millions." Excellent logicking. You'll take basically any excuse to not do anything about climate, right?