3 ms·

It's a little bit more complicated than that. They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, and many environ

It's a little bit more complicated than that. They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. I could even be convinced of the latter, but I know enough to know that both of these policies are political poison pills in effect. Plenty of environmental groups have done plenty of harm to the cause, largely from not accepting half a loaf.

danans 4y ago
> They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, Is there a reason you are unable to just use the word "nuclear"? Non-proliferation was, and still is, a major concern for nuclear power. Add to that the fact that current uranium supply lines end in Russia. It may have a role in the future, and we should continue to invest in that possibility, but it's far from conclusive that it will be viable economically. > and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. Our economic system is always changing and evolving in response to social pressures. That's how we got the 5 day work week, Medicare, and historically low tax rates. Globalized capitalism itself is experiencing a retrenchement at this moment, which is as much a response to growing internal inequality in the developed world as it is about the aftermath of the pandemic and concern about onshore strategic manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, negotiations are underway for the wealthy world (who put most of the CO2 into the atmosphere) to pay the developing world for the damage they have incurred due to climate change, and to develop in a renewable way. Which is all to say, our current economic system is changing no matter what.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  Yeah, because nuclear isn't the only one. Environmental groups never object to hydro power, right? They've never objected to helping brown coal be replaced by less CO2 emitting ones in poor countries right? They've never objected to replacing biomass burning with coal or coal with natural gas? Nope. They go to Africa and tell people to put soda bottles in their roof instead (ie our trash). It's not just nuclear, but nice try. The rest is too hostile to bother with. Sorry I dared question holy environmental groups who have never shot themselves in the foot. Of course it will have to change. The point is how. I want it done, I just don't want to sacrifice our industrial society and I don't want to listen to pseudo-science justifying bad trade offs just because of vibes, mostly because I don't think most other people will either and then you get little or nothing. France—not the US, ok, since I know US bad—has this all figured out. I'm sure you think I'm some sort of global warming denier or whatever. I'm not. I urgently want solutions. So urgently, I'm willing to look for less than utopian solutions. Anyway, so how's this approach working out for you? Have we solved it?

danans 4y ago

> They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, Is there a reason you are unable to just use the word "nuclear"? Non-proliferation was, and still is, a major concern for nuclear power. Add to that the fact that current uranium supply lines end in Russia. It may have a role in the future, and we should continue to invest in that possibility, but it's far from conclusive that it will be viable economically. > and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. Our economic system is always changing and evolving in response to social pressures. That's how we got the 5 day work week, Medicare, and historically low tax rates. Globalized capitalism itself is experiencing a retrenchement at this moment, which is as much a response to growing internal inequality in the developed world as it is about the aftermath of the pandemic and concern about onshore strategic manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, negotiations are underway for the wealthy world (who put most of the CO2 into the atmosphere) to pay the developing world for the damage they have incurred due to climate change, and to develop in a renewable way. Which is all to say, our current economic system is changing no matter what.

garbagecoder 4y ago
Yeah, because nuclear isn't the only one. Environmental groups never object to hydro power, right? They've never objected to helping brown coal be replaced by less CO2 emitting ones in poor countries right? They've never objected to replacing biomass burning with coal or coal with natural gas? Nope. They go to Africa and tell people to put soda bottles in their roof instead (ie our trash). It's not just nuclear, but nice try. The rest is too hostile to bother with. Sorry I dared question holy environmental groups who have never shot themselves in the foot. Of course it will have to change. The point is how. I want it done, I just don't want to sacrifice our industrial society and I don't want to listen to pseudo-science justifying bad trade offs just because of vibes, mostly because I don't think most other people will either and then you get little or nothing. France—not the US, ok, since I know US bad—has this all figured out. I'm sure you think I'm some sort of global warming denier or whatever. I'm not. I urgently want solutions. So urgently, I'm willing to look for less than utopian solutions. Anyway, so how's this approach working out for you? Have we solved it?