4 ms·

> It has some effect No. > You think that people on the left want to help the environment solely to anger the right? He never said that, and I doubt you have

by donw 5y ago

> It has some effect No. > You think that people on the left want to help the environment solely to anger the right? He never said that, and I doubt you have psychic powers. Environmentalists have always favored ideology over effectiveness. It is more important to show their friends that they are "doing the work", even though the actual results are almost always worse for the environment. Seventy years of environmentalists fighting against nuclear power is why most of the US is still powered by coal. Bad for atmospheric carbon, bad for the nation, but great if you make your money from NGOs.

azinman2 5y ago
> Environmentalists have always favored ideology over effectiveness. I don't know if that's actually true or not (it would be worth a macro study). Unfortunately, this is often true for almost every group for whatever it's fighting for. It's ideology that brings people together. This is easily seen in NGOs, and is very well examined in Dead Aid [1]. I highly recommend reading it... emotion is what drives most giving, and almost certainly how people fight for a cause. It's hard to be rational all the time. > Seventy years of environmentalists fighting against nuclear power is why most of the US is still powered by coal. Bad for atmospheric carbon, bad for the nation, but great if you make your money from NGOs. Can you give evidence to support that environmentalists fighting nuclear is why we have so much coal? Seems like the coal lobby has been pretty strong lately for their own survival, independent of any environmental concerns. [1] https://dambisamoyo.com/book/dead-aid/ https://dambisamoyo.com/book/dead-aid/
- colechristensen 5y ago
  >Can you give evidence to support that environmentalists fighting nuclear is why we have so much coal? Seems like the coal lobby has been pretty strong lately for their own survival, independent of any environmental concerns. Nuclear is (or at least can be) long-term cheaper than coal, the biggest cost of nuclear is the initial construction cost which can go way down if the process isn't bogged down with local environmental opposition and if instead of a few one-off plants you have a consistent schedule which allows for effectively mass-produced power plants. Government usage of nuclear scaremongering to prop up power and support the geopolitical struggle with the USSR and the environmental adoption of this attitude put the construction of nuclear plants severely behind and limited research and development of better, cheaper reactors. In other words, much of the cost of nuclear can be attributed to opposition to nuclear which if it had not happened would have resulted in much less carbon being burned for electricity. Lobbyists can do a lot but they can't make major economic benefits magically disappear which is why coal shutdown has been slowed but not stopped by the fact that coal is now among the most expensive electricity and nobody wants to buy it.

by donw 5y ago

azinman2 5y ago

> Environmentalists have always favored ideology over effectiveness. I don't know if that's actually true or not (it would be worth a macro study). Unfortunately, this is often true for almost every group for whatever it's fighting for. It's ideology that brings people together. This is easily seen in NGOs, and is very well examined in Dead Aid [1]. I highly recommend reading it... emotion is what drives most giving, and almost certainly how people fight for a cause. It's hard to be rational all the time. > Seventy years of environmentalists fighting against nuclear power is why most of the US is still powered by coal. Bad for atmospheric carbon, bad for the nation, but great if you make your money from NGOs. Can you give evidence to support that environmentalists fighting nuclear is why we have so much coal? Seems like the coal lobby has been pretty strong lately for their own survival, independent of any environmental concerns. [1] https://dambisamoyo.com/book/dead-aid/ https://dambisamoyo.com/book/dead-aid/

colechristensen 5y ago
>Can you give evidence to support that environmentalists fighting nuclear is why we have so much coal? Seems like the coal lobby has been pretty strong lately for their own survival, independent of any environmental concerns. Nuclear is (or at least can be) long-term cheaper than coal, the biggest cost of nuclear is the initial construction cost which can go way down if the process isn't bogged down with local environmental opposition and if instead of a few one-off plants you have a consistent schedule which allows for effectively mass-produced power plants. Government usage of nuclear scaremongering to prop up power and support the geopolitical struggle with the USSR and the environmental adoption of this attitude put the construction of nuclear plants severely behind and limited research and development of better, cheaper reactors. In other words, much of the cost of nuclear can be attributed to opposition to nuclear which if it had not happened would have resulted in much less carbon being burned for electricity. Lobbyists can do a lot but they can't make major economic benefits magically disappear which is why coal shutdown has been slowed but not stopped by the fact that coal is now among the most expensive electricity and nobody wants to buy it.