SovietFriends posted:like their is a reason why nuclear power isn't accepted by all greens including loads of green marxists when they are arguing for how capitalism fits in with ecological contradictions?
its not just that everyone who doesn't like it is secretly missing our on the facts that lead people on something awful to fawn after it all the time
There are a lot of reasons. One is simply a continuance of anti-nuclear policy from before climate change became an issue. Another is different emphasis placed on feasibility or philosophic concerns. Also differences in how humans respond to threats, with improbable but high danger risks getting weighted higher than probable but diffuse dangers. This last issue relates to public perception, but can influence institutional actors dependent on donations or vulnerable to political influences. Many environmentalists may not understand problems with baseload power or simply have faith in technological and engineering advances to overcome them.
I've noticed a divide between environmentalists with backgrounds in engineering and backgrounds in biology and the humanities, and this divide is reflected in places like Something Awful.
GF made a really good post on the psychology of climate change and environmentalism long ago, I'll see if I can dig it up
getfiscal posted:politics tends to have people's positions clump around obvious and simple solutions to large numbers of different problems and it is really obvious with climate change. like 90% of leftists hear that ecological issues will mean we need to have better regulation of the economy and then jump on board immediately. it also means they can sweep concerns of socialism being bad for growth under the carpet by saying that unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell or whatever. and a lot of them already hate that americans consume a lot and decide to add some puritan fears that it is somehow bad for more than just that person.
ronald reagan had a quote that it's gotten to the point where some people can't see a fat person standing beside a slim one without thinking that the fat person made the slim one that way. the love for ecosocialism comes from basically believing that's true.
the green party leader in canada is leading a campaign against smart meters because they have wireless components and she's implying that this is a dangerous health risk. so basically she's taking a position against electrical load-balancing, which is the most obvious first step of conservation, because she has largely baseless fears against a universally used technology. so like why should i trust that this person knows everything about climate science.
Squalid posted:There are a lot of reasons. One is simply a continuance of anti-nuclear policy from before climate change became an issue. Another is different emphasis placed on feasibility or philosophic concerns. Also differences in how humans respond to threats, with improbable but high danger risks getting weighted higher than probable but diffuse dangers. This last issue relates to public perception, but can influence institutional actors dependent on donations or vulnerable to political influences. Many environmentalists may not understand problems with baseload power or simply have faith in technological and engineering advances to overcome them.
I've noticed a divide between environmentalists with backgrounds in engineering and backgrounds in biology and the humanities, and this divide is reflected in places like Something Awful.
GF made a really good post on the psychology of climate change and environmentalism long ago, I'll see if I can dig it up
you missed the tone of my post i was saying that their is a reason
also knowing engineering doesnt mean you know the economics, social etc of climate change like i am fine with the idea that its totally clean and the only way to produce baseload of electricity, i am also fine with the idea that renweability is at best intermittent and also runs along secular trends in terms of the amount of electricity it can produce anyway, plus i get that nucleur like heat engines has massive advantages re portability and battery power
instead i think that their are no ways to deal with waste in a good way which is cheap, their is no discussion on to what extent nuclear can replace the scale of electricity production is uranium is limited, that the scalability of nucleur power to provide enough for the world would involve scaling disasters
instead i like fiskers position on energy that we need to treat the future as one where we will have less energy to utilise
that means maybe using nucleur power to some degree but its not relying on any form of technology to manage that shift in a flexible way
i think you completely miss that engineers are only one aspect of green power production at all because in the end its society that fits technology to its geospatial constraints and the contradictions always develop from that relationship first and foremost
Squalid posted:getfiscal posted:politics tends to have people's positions clump around obvious and simple solutions to large numbers of different problems and it is really obvious with climate change. like 90% of leftists hear that ecological issues will mean we need to have better regulation of the economy and then jump on board immediately. it also means they can sweep concerns of socialism being bad for growth under the carpet by saying that unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell or whatever. and a lot of them already hate that americans consume a lot and decide to add some puritan fears that it is somehow bad for more than just that person.
ronald reagan had a quote that it's gotten to the point where some people can't see a fat person standing beside a slim one without thinking that the fat person made the slim one that way. the love for ecosocialism comes from basically believing that's true.
the green party leader in canada is leading a campaign against smart meters because they have wireless components and she's implying that this is a dangerous health risk. so basically she's taking a position against electrical load-balancing, which is the most obvious first step of conservation, because she has largely baseless fears against a universally used technology. so like why should i trust that this person knows everything about climate science.
that is what we should work with
like a rejection of the non socialist greens fairly smart points on entropy, relative scarcity, risk is a bad idea because they are useful its just that they need reintegrating into a critique of capitalism as a system of accumulation + the need for a socialist future
gyrofry posted:PYF ronald reagan quotes
Crow posted:Squalid posted:getfiscal posted:politics tends to have people's positions clump around obvious and simple solutions to large numbers of different problems and it is really obvious with climate change. like 90% of leftists hear that ecological issues will mean we need to have better regulation of the economy and then jump on board immediately. it also means they can sweep concerns of socialism being bad for growth under the carpet by saying that unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell or whatever. and a lot of them already hate that americans consume a lot and decide to add some puritan fears that it is somehow bad for more than just that person.
ronald reagan had a quote that it's gotten to the point where some people can't see a fat person standing beside a slim one without thinking that the fat person made the slim one that way. the love for ecosocialism comes from basically believing that's true.
the green party leader in canada is leading a campaign against smart meters because they have wireless components and she's implying that this is a dangerous health risk. so basically she's taking a position against electrical load-balancing, which is the most obvious first step of conservation, because she has largely baseless fears against a universally used technology. so like why should i trust that this person knows everything about climate science.
how many jobs do you have now crow?
gyrofry posted:slumlord posted:maybe nuclear power is stupid or maybe it isn't but lol in your fat doughy face if you trust multinational corporations to build and operate nuclear plants safely and responsibly
i agree and this is why i support locally-sourced backyard heirloom reactors
you mean these things?
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/portable-backyard-nuclear-reactors-ready-to-be-installed-by-2013.html
Superabound posted:a people that are clearly able to construct and meticulously maintain a mass scale space-age public transporation infrastructure where the average delay time is literally 6 seconds
Crow posted:Squalid posted:getfiscal posted:politics tends to have people's positions clump around obvious and simple solutions to large numbers of different problems and it is really obvious with climate change. like 90% of leftists hear that ecological issues will mean we need to have better regulation of the economy and then jump on board immediately. it also means they can sweep concerns of socialism being bad for growth under the carpet by saying that unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell or whatever. and a lot of them already hate that americans consume a lot and decide to add some puritan fears that it is somehow bad for more than just that person.
ronald reagan had a quote that it's gotten to the point where some people can't see a fat person standing beside a slim one without thinking that the fat person made the slim one that way. the love for ecosocialism comes from basically believing that's true.
the green party leader in canada is leading a campaign against smart meters because they have wireless components and she's implying that this is a dangerous health risk. so basically she's taking a position against electrical load-balancing, which is the most obvious first step of conservation, because she has largely baseless fears against a universally used technology. so like why should i trust that this person knows everything about climate science.
This is life.
Superabound posted:to anyone who actually supports an expansion of fission power generation, id like to remind you that there is STILL an ongoing nuclear disaster occurring right now in Japan that has dumped out more radiation than Chernobyl, is still going strong, and no one has any way of stopping, and that this is happening in a country with a thousand times the safety regulations and government oversight as any American industry, and a people that are clearly able to construct and meticulously maintain a mass scale space-age public transporation infrastructure where the average delay time is literally 6 seconds. if you trust Americans to do anything with nuclear power other than kill thousands of people you are an idiot
japan actually has pretty lax standards for its plants, and its agencies admitted that this contributed to their failure. japan had to import specialized US robots to deal with their meltdown. japan is another decaying liberal nation, it is not some sort of sublime, well-oiled bureaucracy
i invite you to examine france's system of nuclear power plants
the shrill comments about nuclear waste in this thread are pretty funny if you know anything at all about coal impoundments etc. the amount of waste actually created by nuclear plants is pretty negligible relative to that of conventional power sources and with certain types of modern reactors it can be reused. a centrall planning authority would have no trouble handling the waste in a way that is almost completely safe; even today nuclear waste causes less harm than coal waste, even proportionate to the amount of power produced.
further liberal hand-wringing itt will result in probations
it's fracking, fracking is the responsible option
“No we can’t have nuclear power because it’s potentially harmful to safety!
*Builds public hospitals that transmit huge numbers of infections *
check, and, mate,
getfiscal posted:yeah i mean "climate change" is a thing but like as the maoist rebel news guy says 10 million kids die each year of preventable diseases so like let's not pretend shutting down a few coal plants in china and recycling your cans is going to save earth only communism will
I liked your post further up the page Fringo but it’s both deeper and simpler than that.
I really cannot understand why it’s so hard to see that climate change alarmism (or concern, or ‘action’) is just millennial Christianity rebadged for a crowd who thinks they’re above the ‘bible stuff’. It’s all there: The coming apocalypse (plagues, rising sea levels), the calls for individual repentance (prayer, recycling), the insistence on making wider society conform to your visions of morality (stripping reproductive rights, climate taxes), the snake oil salesman who profit from it. It’s just another way of giving people a narrative of fear and morality to keep them in line and it’s fucking sad that so many leftists fall for such a cheap trick.
Squalid posted:Also differences in how humans respond to threats, with improbable but high danger risks getting weighted higher than probable but diffuse dangers.
Great news: Nuclear Power is both!
yeah i mean "climate change" is a thing but like as the maoist rebel news guy says 10 million kids die each year of preventable diseases so like let's not pretend shutting down a few coal plants in china and recycling your cans is going to save earth only communism will
I hope you've all read about the Durban climate change conference, it was an obvious attempt to force First World policies on the Third World in the face of an imaginary threat. The entire science behind global warming is bogus anyway, the energy train will overtake the climate train before the groove train ever arrives.
Just read reliable sources, like LLCO.
http://llco.org/third-world-countries-protest-first-world-countries-over-climate-change/
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/the-developing-world-leading-on-climate-change/
In what may turn out to be one of the abiding ironies of global geopolitics, leadership on climate change seems to have suddenly passed from the developed to the developing world, as has public anxiety about the damaging effects of a changing climate.
As recently as the Copenhagen summit in late 2009, the West blamed large developing countries such as China and India for scuppering the chances of a “grand agreement” to curb the emission of greenhouse gases. Poor developing countries argued they needed the right to pollute in order to catch up to the West in terms of economic development, while the rich nations clucked that the world could ill afford more carbon emissions.
On the flip side, at the Cancun summit a year later, India’s then environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, was pilloried in the domestic press, and accused, by his own admission, of “caving in to the United States” in the final near-consensus plan that was agreed.
http://llco.org/will-first-worlders-benefit-from-socialism/
Unfortunately, these benefits of socialism do not establish First World peoples as a social base for revolution. First World peoples are, and will continue to be, the most reactionary populations in the world for the time being. However, socialism is not about punishment, it is about liberation. However, we cannot let sentimentalism stand in our way from setting the world right. Let there be no mistake, liberation of humanity will entail the destruction of the First World way of life. In the end, in the long run, this will even be good for First World peoples themselves.
getfiscal posted:yeah i mean "climate change" is a thing but like as the maoist rebel news guy says 10 million kids die each year of preventable diseases so like let's not pretend shutting down a few coal plants in china and recycling your cans is going to save earth only communism will
But why are 10 million dead kids commensurable with the wealfare of the earth to begin with?
littlegreenpills posted:if climate change isn't a Thing then eternal liberal capitalism is the way to go as the last few decades have demonstrated that it's the best thing ever to happen to mankind sorry. I mean we talk about the great recession and sweatshop slaves and blood diamonds and all the rest of it, but the fact is more people than ever have toilets to shit in and do not need to shit on the ground or the beach or the road and i defy you to point out to me one example of somebody who had a toilet losing it as a result of capital's eternal march or some shit. impending environmental collapse is the only reason to have communism sorry
No one adjusted to capitalism circa 1920 would be very impressed by a system that promised them no more shitting in the mud. It's the progress of civilization that we expect this in 2013 at the very least.