5 ms·

I think most environmentalist are just very anti-growth and just want to solve environmental issues by reducing any resource consumption. By saying no to nuclea

I think most environmentalist are just very anti-growth and just want to solve environmental issues by reducing any resource consumption. By saying no to nuclear they are fulfilling their anti-growth strategy, but leaving a large resource gap that gets filled by more polluting, less dramatic energy sources.

kangnkodos 6y ago
So close. The only acceptable solution to them is less consumption. They don't really think through the consequences. For example, they have cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, but simply do not think about the additional fossil fuel that will be burned transporting that oil via train instead. They dream of less consumption and ignore the actual real world consequences.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  No, the point is that shipping by train is more expensive. The point is to drive up the price of oil and hasten the time when it becomes uncompetitive with renewables.
  - kangnkodos 6y ago
    That's a good point. But is it better to raise taxes on fossil fuel, or decide to ship oil via train instead of pipeline? I'm not sure what the exact tradeoff would be if train delivered oil was a little more expensive. A little more expensive would lead to a little less usage while the delilvery would pump more pollution into the air. The math might work out out your way or my way. If I could snap my fingers, I would raise the tax on oil dramatically, and ship oil via pipeline until renewables actually take over and the demand for fossil fuel actually goes down. It seems to me that it would be better for the environment than other alternatives.
    - keynan 6y ago
      I agree this is optimal, however politics is a thing and you went and used the word tax.
    - belorn 6y ago
      If I could snap my fingers I would just copy the strategy by the anti-nuclear movement. As an strategy, theirs were both a great success, market friendly, easy for politicians to support and economical. First step is to forbid creating new fossil fueled power plants for increased capacity. This has zero impact right now on the grid, but sets the road for the industry. Projects created before this date is not impacted. Second step is to set a deadline where existing plants need to be demolished. The date get set around the time of existing plans for investments to be recovered. This makes current investors happy, while we also get a definitive date where the plants will be gone. At this point we are done. New investors will look at the market and see an opportunity for increase demand for energy down the road, and at the same time see old capacity that will need to be replaced. There is no tax nor tax politics involved. No decisions regarding pipelines, trains or ships. Just two political decisions that has zero impact on anyone right now.
etripe 6y ago
I think the real reason goes farther back. The environmentalist movement grew out of the peace movement, which was anti-nuclear because all they saw were the military applications. A few decades down the line, they've forgotten why they don't like it, but they still don't like it.
wtfiswiththis 6y ago
A lot of the core criticism of civilian nuclear power was correct in retrospect. As it stands it is an extension of the military production line for nuclear arms and removing itself from that has been very costly & timely with no end in sight. Things like solar power simply do not come with that baggage. Then on the other side of the equation, much of the points of criticism for power sources like solar or wind have been done away with or mitigated. Their efficiency has gone up along with the grid's ability to handle such sources. Many of the choices now we have were sub-optimal decades ago but environmentalists invested when investment meant losing money. I'm still a fan of nuclear power but credit has to be given here.

kangnkodos 6y ago

So close. The only acceptable solution to them is less consumption. They don't really think through the consequences. For example, they have cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, but simply do not think about the additional fossil fuel that will be burned transporting that oil via train instead. They dream of less consumption and ignore the actual real world consequences.

Analemma_ 6y ago
No, the point is that shipping by train is more expensive. The point is to drive up the price of oil and hasten the time when it becomes uncompetitive with renewables.
- kangnkodos 6y ago
  That's a good point. But is it better to raise taxes on fossil fuel, or decide to ship oil via train instead of pipeline? I'm not sure what the exact tradeoff would be if train delivered oil was a little more expensive. A little more expensive would lead to a little less usage while the delilvery would pump more pollution into the air. The math might work out out your way or my way. If I could snap my fingers, I would raise the tax on oil dramatically, and ship oil via pipeline until renewables actually take over and the demand for fossil fuel actually goes down. It seems to me that it would be better for the environment than other alternatives.
  - keynan 6y ago
    I agree this is optimal, however politics is a thing and you went and used the word tax.
  - belorn 6y ago
    If I could snap my fingers I would just copy the strategy by the anti-nuclear movement. As an strategy, theirs were both a great success, market friendly, easy for politicians to support and economical. First step is to forbid creating new fossil fueled power plants for increased capacity. This has zero impact right now on the grid, but sets the road for the industry. Projects created before this date is not impacted. Second step is to set a deadline where existing plants need to be demolished. The date get set around the time of existing plans for investments to be recovered. This makes current investors happy, while we also get a definitive date where the plants will be gone. At this point we are done. New investors will look at the market and see an opportunity for increase demand for energy down the road, and at the same time see old capacity that will need to be replaced. There is no tax nor tax politics involved. No decisions regarding pipelines, trains or ships. Just two political decisions that has zero impact on anyone right now.

etripe 6y ago

I think the real reason goes farther back. The environmentalist movement grew out of the peace movement, which was anti-nuclear because all they saw were the military applications. A few decades down the line, they've forgotten why they don't like it, but they still don't like it.

wtfiswiththis 6y ago

A lot of the core criticism of civilian nuclear power was correct in retrospect. As it stands it is an extension of the military production line for nuclear arms and removing itself from that has been very costly & timely with no end in sight. Things like solar power simply do not come with that baggage. Then on the other side of the equation, much of the points of criticism for power sources like solar or wind have been done away with or mitigated. Their efficiency has gone up along with the grid's ability to handle such sources. Many of the choices now we have were sub-optimal decades ago but environmentalists invested when investment meant losing money. I'm still a fan of nuclear power but credit has to be given here.