You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
1–10 of 139 posts
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#2Interesting idea: you can opt out of identity politics.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#3Carbon neutral is a fancy way of saying "let's pollute the same as we do now". Generally achieved via fake offsets, as we do not have the technology to offset something like US pollution.
Even EU ETS (the most developed offset system) is much too slow to cause major dent in the problem.
Where most climate predictions require us to stop altogether to avoid most painful results of climate change.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#4I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underground facility. Whenever people have gut reactions without evidence, the conversation quickly becomes non-productive.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#5Interesting idea: you can opt out of identity politics.
Right?
As an aside, I was surprised by the repeated use of "climate hawk" throughout the article as an identity that we might be interested in taking on. Could they have said e.g. "people concerned about climate change"? I may just not know the term's history.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#6Placing some bets on nuclear make sense (France gets 80% of electric generation from nuclear) but counting on nuclear is risky because nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. America should probably keep trying on a small scale and if they can figure it, then ramp up. The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#7I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underground facility. Whenever people have gut reactions without evidence, the conversation quickly becomes non-productive.
Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#8Interesting idea: you can opt out of identity politics.
Right? As an aside, I was surprised by the repeated use of "climate hawk" throughout the article as an identity that we might be interested in taking on. Could they have said e.g. "people concerned about climate change"? I may just not know the term's history.
I find this focus on identity politics so toxic it's starting to make life miserable.
I'm currently driving a VW SUV company car in a german suburb and the amount of hate I receive because of it is ramping up daily. Even from people driving similar polluting cars, like high-powered station wagons.
The other day my wife was breastfeeding our child in our car while I was quickly grabbing something from a store when it was 36°C/96.8°F outside, so I naturally left the car running so the AC would keep them cool. I was barely a minute out of the car when a woman came knocking on the window, gesturing my wife to turn off the car, giving her the finger etc.
I can't imagine similar things happening even 5 years ago.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#9Carbon neutral is a fancy way of saying "let's pollute the same as we do now". Generally achieved via fake offsets, as we do not have the technology to offset something like US pollution. Even EU ETS (the most developed offset system) is much too slow to cause major dent in the problem. Where most climate predictions require us to stop altogether to avoid most painful results of climate change.
Context: very small western EU country.
Over here we are:
- cutting down the very few square kilometers of forest we have because the EU declared that everyone has to be carbon neutral or pay fines, and 'wood pellets' are considered 'renewable' energy sources by the administration. The cabinet minister in charge has admitted to the absurdity but stated he is not going to stop the practice as this would lead to being fined.
- keeping open severely damaged aging nuclear plants even when under the protest of several neighboring countries recognizing the dangers. The person in charge of this matter at the energy minister's cabinet just moved through he revolving door and got a very cozy 'job' at the company that owns and operates the plants. The energy minister was not amused as it is customary to await the next elections before cashing in and this person moved in a potential election preamble period.
- The nuclear test facility operated by the government has once more run out of storage space for nuclear waste. In the 'good old days' they just dumped all the waste in the North Sea (it's still there), but now they have to store it. The cement vats they have been using were leaking in the past, and now they have ran out of space for storing them as the piles keep on growing.
Nuclear might be sound in theory, but humans just can't handle the responsibility in practice. And the one answer a neoliberal market economy based socio-economic system is incapable of providing is abstinence, as it is systemically antithetical to it and outside of its potential solution space.
Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”
#10This is bad writing for a lot of reason.
First the author tells us that if we consider ourselves pro or anti nuclear we can't possibly have thought through the pros and cons of nuclear power. It must be because we identify ourselves as left or right. Or green or not.
Then he tells us that if we _do_ have a policy position, we are probably wrong because "its complicated". All of which I find mildly insulting.
Then he proceeds to look at nuclear "purely though the lens of climate change", which as far as I'm concerned is not useful because many of the reasons one might choose to be anti-nuclear are not climate change related.