4 ms·

Before blaming them, we should ask why they are against it. “provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy” I would be also against a bill that inclu

Before blaming them, we should ask why they are against it. “provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy” I would be also against a bill that includes this.

drusepth 5y ago
Are you against carbon-free nuclear energy, or against payments propping such energy up?
lordlic 5y ago
The article says why. The US Chamber of Commerce has fought tooth and nail against climate legislation because they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society. They've only recently been forced to admit that climate change even exists, but it's still like pulling teeth because they insist that any solutions have to be technology driven from the private sector, with no mandates whatsoever from government. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce#Climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Comme... and try to keep from retching.
- Lammy 5y ago
  > they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society On a totally unrelated note, just think how much activity an Arctic shipping corridor could add to the globalized economy :) https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-route-243485 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-r...
throwawaysea 5y ago
Could you explain your position? I feel like nuclear energy is one of the best options we have available for a reduction in carbon emissions, with very high safety despite public fears: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_... Or is your opposition more due to the proposed subsidy?
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > with very high safety Nope. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima will cost over $1 trillion to clean up, if ever. Can we send the bills to you?
sofixa 5y ago
Nuclear energy is probably our best bet for big scale carbon-free energy. Renewables without (costly, often impractical) enormous storage can't do the job, and keeping gas plants for peak loads isn't helping. Nuclear has enormous upfront costs, making it a somewhat risky investment, so big subsidies are required to get it up and running. After that you get carbon-free electricity for decades. So which part are you against?

Before blaming them, we should ask why they are against it. “provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy” I would be also against a bill that includes this.

drusepth 5y ago

Are you against carbon-free nuclear energy, or against payments propping such energy up?

lordlic 5y ago

The article says why. The US Chamber of Commerce has fought tooth and nail against climate legislation because they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society. They've only recently been forced to admit that climate change even exists, but it's still like pulling teeth because they insist that any solutions have to be technology driven from the private sector, with no mandates whatsoever from government. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce#Climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Comme... and try to keep from retching.

Lammy 5y ago
> they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society On a totally unrelated note, just think how much activity an Arctic shipping corridor could add to the globalized economy :) https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-route-243485 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-r...

throwawaysea 5y ago

Could you explain your position? I feel like nuclear energy is one of the best options we have available for a reduction in carbon emissions, with very high safety despite public fears: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_... Or is your opposition more due to the proposed subsidy?

redis_mlc 5y ago
> with very high safety Nope. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima will cost over $1 trillion to clean up, if ever. Can we send the bills to you?

sofixa 5y ago

Nuclear energy is probably our best bet for big scale carbon-free energy. Renewables without (costly, often impractical) enormous storage can't do the job, and keeping gas plants for peak loads isn't helping. Nuclear has enormous upfront costs, making it a somewhat risky investment, so big subsidies are required to get it up and running. After that you get carbon-free electricity for decades. So which part are you against?