|
Protagorean posted:No, we get what you're saying, it's just that you're an utter tit talking past us about a completely different paradigm of the problem. We're talking about how current energy sources are making our oceans more acidic than Coca-Cola and our atmosphere hotter than buffalo wings, and nuclear is at the moment the only feasible backbone for a sustainable energy future. You're blathering on about how our energy woes is a societal ill rooted in capitalism. We're, for the most part, all leftists bub, but unless you have any bright ideas for kickstarting the revolution aside from disallowing the construction of any new energy infrastructure then just waiting until the hills are on fire to drive people into the arms of anarchism, you're saying nothing of worth. Hell, even a suggestion as to what the sustainable economy of a future leftist society would look like would be more constructive than you going "no nuclear FULL STOP" because of your perception that there is some majority of posters here that think nuclear is a silver bullet; I won't pretend there aren't some, but I imagine you'd find most of us are receptive to the idea that at this point we're simply buying time, if you'd shut up for ten seconds. What is being largely ignored on both sides in this thread is the idea that our model of consumption (regarding energy & other resources), in tandem with population growth and increasing industrialization, are the core sources of the problem facing the entire planet at this point. Panty-waist about the scale, rate of increase, or real causes all you like. We're consuming more than can be replaced, barring a whiz-bang technological miracle that either reduces consumption per-capita or provides unlimited free energy. We have to either reduce consumption per person or reduce human population to maintain the quality of life we have today for each person, or deny said quality of life to billions. If someone has a way around this that doesn't guarantee widespread resource shortages, catastrophe, or both, I'm all ears. 
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:We really need to stop energy growth within a century or so. The "we'll overheat!" argument usually contains at least an implication of being aimed at economic growth, though, and that's where it really falls down, because you absolutely cannot peg a dollar of economic activity to a certain amount of energy consumption. The relevant material for this is also graphed in the link above, but here's the raw numbers: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf I was actually all set to calculate the historical GDP per BTU, but it turns out it's already done for me by the EIA. The energy consumption per dollar of real GDP dropped by more than half between 1949 and today. Total energy consumption actually declined between 2004 and 2010, despite a 7% increase in real GDP. Thermodynamic limits may have some relevance to capitalism's assumptions of endless growth, but it's certainly not in the naive way that that link is suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Wrong, the fundamental problem is overpopulation. I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but in my experience it is very frequently discussed, in the environmental movement and out of it - pretty much whenever the need to reduce our consumption is mentioned, in fact. It is so much easier to think that others should have fewer children than that we, ourselves, should have less stuff. But overpopulation is not a cause of global warming at all (though it is of other environmental problems). The amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere is proportional to our fossil fuel consumption, not our numbers, and our consumption could easily carry on rising even as population fell. We have not discovered a limit to individual consumption. When people point to rising emissions from China and India as evidence that population is the problem, they forget that those emissions are in large part caused by the manufacture of stuff for the West. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I have asked, three times now, for the pro-nuclear posters to consider their advocacy in a broader sense--to consider that our energy needs are a symptom of a social structure that is unable to conceive of moderation or environmental responsibility. This has been addressed a bunch of times on the last page alone, and has been common throughout the thread. Everyone agrees that societal changes ALSO need to be made. The advocacy for nuclear comes from the fact that these societal changes will take longer than we have, unless we switch to nuclear in the meantime(even then who knows). Nobody is saying "put in nuclear and keep the rest the same". Oh dear me posted:But overpopulation is not a cause of global warming at all (though it is of other environmental problems). The amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere is proportional to our fossil fuel consumption, not our numbers, and our consumption could easily carry on rising even as population fell. Stoven fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Stoven posted:This has been addressed a bunch of times on the last page alone, and has been common throughout the thread. Everyone agrees that societal changes ALSO need to be made. The advocacy for nuclear comes from the fact that these societal changes will take longer than we have, unless we switch to nuclear in the meantime(even then who knows). Nobody is saying "put in nuclear and keep the rest the same". And the common reply to that has been, what if the effect of putting in nuclear is that we keep the rest the same for longer? quote:People existing in a vacuum doesn't affect anything, but overpopulation brings things like farming practices and deforestation and what not and they most definitely affect climate. Our farming practices and deforestation are also related to our consumption patterns, rather than a simple product of population. But OK, allow it some effect: it's still hardly the main issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:And the common reply to that has been, what if the effect of putting in nuclear is that we keep the rest the same for longer? Then Hooray! it worked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
Stoven posted:Then Hooray! it worked. Only if the goal was to overconsume for as long as possible. If we were trying to reduce environmental catastrophe, a measure that allowed the overconsumers to carry on longer before personally feeling the ill effects would be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
The idea is we use that time to work on the other problems, and that if we don't buy ourselves that time we are likely screwed. What are you proposing we do instead?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
Stoven posted:The idea is we use that time to work on the other problems So the idea is for nuclear power + a sudden miraculous behavioural change. I don't need to think another solution will work before I can point out the flaw in this one. But if you like, I'll propose a sudden miraculous behavioural change. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Since we're doing overpopulationchat, there was a pretty interesting editorial in the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html?src=me&ref=general
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:So the idea is for nuclear power + a sudden miraculous behavioural change. I don't need to think another solution will work before I can point out the flaw in this one. But if you like, I'll propose a sudden miraculous behavioural change. How about putting it like this: without nuclear, anything else we do will be meaningless, because CO2 will increase to the point where things are royally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:And the common reply to that has been, what if the effect of putting in nuclear is that we keep the rest the same for longer? It's really irrelevant to the discussion on "what if later nothing changes", because to do nothing now means there won't be a later to consider. Handwringing about whether humanity will go through the needed behavioral changes later distracts from the discussion of actual solutions, and on the scale of workable solutions, nuclear power is staggeringly easier to achieve than mass, sudden, behavioral change required for a drawn down on consumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:How about putting it like this: without nuclear, anything else we do will be meaningless, because CO2 will increase to the point where things are royally hosed. There's no point putting it like that, because it doesn't address the contrary argument at all. Whether nuclear power is a good thing depends on whether it makes us more or less likely to keep burning fossil fuels and overconsuming. Pro-nuclear advocates think buying us more time to stop is obviously good. Deptstoremook and others have suggest it may merely delay other action, so that we actually do even more harm in the end. I don't know how we could get evidence to settle this disagreement, but it would be nice if we could recognize it rather than just repeating our own conclusions. FaustianQ posted:It's really irrelevant to the discussion on "what if later nothing changes", because to do nothing now means there won't be a later to consider. Handwringing about whether humanity will go through the needed behavioral changes later distracts from the discussion of actual solutions, and on the scale of workable solutions, nuclear power is staggeringly easier to achieve than mass, sudden, behavioral change required for a drawn down on consumption. I think we're all agreed on the disastrous consequences of doing nothing now. But if mass behavioural change is going to be needed at some point to avert catastrophe, as I think it is, then we need to start now to work towards it. If nuclear power will make it less likely, or likely only at a later (and therefore worse) point, then nuclear power could be a bad thing. Look, I'd love nuclear power to be the answer, not least because I think we'll end up with it anyway, as people will try anything rather than face the need to reduce consumption. But when people arguing for it seem assume it will reduce our fossil fuel consumption, despite our hugely elastic demand for energy, and that then we'll do other good environmental things in the teeth of all the evidence, I worry that they haven't realized the scale of the problem. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:There's no point putting it like that, because it doesn't address the contrary argument at all. Whether nuclear power is a good thing depends on whether it makes us more or less likely to keep burning fossil fuels and overconsuming. Pro-nuclear advocates think buying us more time to stop is obviously good. Deptstoremook and others have suggest it may merely delay other action, so that we actually do even more harm in the end. I don't know how we could get evidence to settle this disagreement, but it would be nice if we could recognize it rather than just repeating our own conclusions. The whole argument seems pointless to address. If we don't do something now, then there simply won't be a time for us to do more harm later. I don't see how this is hard to grasp. The literal argument being made is to ignore emergency care for a gangrenous leg because the patient might not walk later, so lets not treat the gangrene and instead handwring about the social ills which cause rusty nails to exist. How about we chop the leg off first, and champion the cause of properly dealing with rusty nails? Heck we might get to be a cool cyborg in the process and walk again, instead of being a corpse!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:The whole argument seems pointless to address. If we don't do something now, then there simply won't be a time for us to do more harm later. I don't see how this is hard to grasp. The literal argument being made is to ignore emergency care for a gangrenous leg because the patient might not walk later, so lets not treat the gangrene and instead handwring about the social ills which cause rusty nails to exist. How about we chop the leg off first, and champion the cause of properly dealing with rusty nails? Heck we might get to be a cool cyborg in the process and walk again, instead of being a corpse! Answered above in an edit, sorry; but we could all pick useless medical analogies to suit our argument. Well-meaning emergency treatment that actually made no difference to the problem but led people to think it had, causing a fatal delay before they went for the only effective treatment, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Answered above in an edit, sorry; but we could all pick useless medical analogies to suit our argument. Well-meaning emergency treatment that actually made no difference to the problem but led people to think it had, causing a fatal delay before they went for the only effective treatment, for example. Your solution ends up killing lots of people either deliberately or as a side effect to the policies you want to pursue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Answered above in an edit, sorry; but we could all pick useless medical analogies to suit our argument. Well-meaning emergency treatment that actually made no difference to the problem but led people to think it had, causing a fatal delay before they went for the only effective treatment, for example. This ignores the fact that there is no alternative besides not pursuing nuclear energy, hence the selection of my analogy. You are not going to achieve the behavioral change necessary to reduce consumption now in any realistic capacity, it is not happening. So an alternative must be chosen that can actually fit within the framework we have now. I feel like I'm arguing at a wall here. At no point is nuclear energy the end solution, it is not the end step or proposed end step in solving the ecological crsis; behavioral change and nuclear energy are not mutually exclusive, can we stop pretending they are? You act as if without sudden sweeping changes to society no change will ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I feel like I'm arguing at a wall here. At no point is nuclear energy the end solution, it is not the end step or proposed end step in solving the ecological crsis; behavioral change and nuclear energy are not mutually exclusive, can we stop pretending they are? You act as if without sudden sweeping changes to society no change will ever happen. Well, it does feel like there's a wall between us somewhere. For example your repetitive statement that nuclear power is not the end solution is especially redundant when I said in my very first post "Everyone agrees that societal changes ALSO need to be made". What's more, far from suggesting that behavioural change and nuclear energy are mutually exclusive, I have suggested that the latter may cause the former. What worries me is that it may cause behavioural change in the wrong direction. Repeating 'there is no alternative' doesn't make a bogus alternative any more real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Well, it does feel like there's a wall between us somewhere. For example your repetitive statement that nuclear power is not the end solution is especially redundant when I said in my very first post "Everyone agrees that societal changes ALSO need to be made". What's more, far from suggesting that behavioural change and nuclear energy are mutually exclusive, I have suggested that the latter may cause the former. What worries me is that it may cause behavioural change in the wrong direction. The existence of nuclear power isn't going to change whether or not we're going to keep burning fossils. The most important thing is that nuclear power is a direct replacement for base load Coal Power generation. Coal is the absolute worst thing to use as far as net CO2 production is concerned. Nuclear power is not a panacea, but it would enable us to cut CO2 emissions drastically and give us lots and lots of energy. As far as figuring out a solution beyond 2 billion people must die, we're still working on that, but cutting emissions and surplus of energy is really the way to go right now. e: Societal changes are a lost cause, that involves convincing everyone to do something that they don't really want to do. The only thing standing in the way of nuclear power is misinformation and a hefty price tag. Scald fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Well, it does feel like there's a wall between us somewhere. For example your repetitive statement that nuclear power is not the end solution is especially redundant when I said in my very first post "Everyone agrees that societal changes ALSO need to be made". What's more, far from suggesting that behavioural change and nuclear energy are mutually exclusive, I have suggested that the latter may cause the former. What worries me is that it may cause behavioural change in the wrong direction. I'm repeating myself because negative behavior due to surplus energy is a nonissue, as there isn't a practical alternative method deployable within time constraints to meet demand. If you cannot meet demand then nations, especially developing ones, will continue to ignore overtures to change towards a more ecologically sustainable energy plan. You're hand wringing over possibilities which won't exist without definitive, workable action; it's almost on the level of concern trolling. You seem convinced there is a better alternative for some reason, otherwise you're literally suggesting throwing ones hands up in the air and giving up. I'm interested in this alternative which is superior to nuclear energy in the short term. e: ^^ I'm stupid and made 3 posts when the above would suffice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Why does nuclear energy (or abundant renewable energy, or whatever) have to be the panacea that cures society and the planet in one shot? When people say it buys time that's what they mean - it will avert one looming catastrophe, and give us the breathing space to look at dealing with the others. It doesn't guarantee anything about the future, how could it? But at least it swerves one terrible outcome. The other thing is that abundant energy potentially buys time in a different kind of world. To have any chance of making the changes that need to be made, we need everyone on the same level. Advanced, developed nations have a high standard of living and are equipped with the technology and skills to make changes and make the case for doing so. That needs to be the situation globally, because those changes need to happen everywhere. And getting there will require energy, it needs to be as clean and cheap as possible. Basically if you imagine your ideal future society, what does it look like? An advanced, efficient setup where everyone has time to live a meaningful life, instead of filling their scarce free time with consumer goods? Or something like the current situation, with global society configured in a producer/consumer hierarchy, with scarcity and poverty and military force forming the power dynamic that keeps that system in place? If it's more like the former, how do we get to that point and erode the imbalances that prop up what we have now? Will the plan involve keeping energy scarce and increasingly expensive, and with all the disastrous climate issues it brings? Or will it involve the need for an energy investment, making far more available (and cheaply) to give people the resources they need to get out of the mess they've been put in? In no way would this be a done deal, the powers that be would want just as much control over access to nuclear energy as they do with fossil fuels - a market is a market after all. But if things were to make steps in the right direction, having technology and clean energy available would support and enable those changes to happen
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:
Developed nations also have vastly lower birthrates, which solve all of the "excessive energy use" hysteria all by itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:So how many people concerned about climate change, and who really believe it's a disaster which threatens millions and millions of people, believe the problem can be solved within a framework of private ownership and liberal capitalism? Solved? No. But maybe we can at least contain it until we figure out how to make the capitalism problem get fixed. Actually slowing down the problem is somewhat achievable by transitioning energy sources without TOO much pain. But fixing it problem? we might need to fix our society a bit. That might actually be a good thing for most of the world. Socialism or something like it can solve more than one problem. edit: Excuse my slighly yoda-ish speech. My keyboard is broken right now and I'm waiting on a replacement mac keyboard. I'm literally copy pasting letters in on certain broken keys like y . duck monster fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
I don't think it is possible to talk about climate change without talking about population and in a way that gets at the implications of social contract. The primary form this takes is per capita consumption and emissions. Carbon footprint calculators are what they are, but an interesting little thought experiment to see something about infrastructure assumtptions is to calculate your footprint as if you were living in the US and then calculate it using the exact same information as if you were living in China and then maybe Africa. In terms of intervention here is a point of view from Donella Meadows. It is only a point of view, but can be useful for parsing conversations like the one on nuclear upthread (which I am finding useful). Here is her article on it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/25ok7yfdue413f0/Leverage_Points.pdf And here is a version of the list thinking through a lake system. quote:
One way to understand the 'talking past' each other is to consider where arguments fall on the list and therefore how they are interrelated. This has already been noted upthread and I sometimes find this little list a useful rubric for parsing such conversations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
How long does it take to build and commission a nuclear power plant, from the start of the design/permitting process to the point where it's online? I imagine it's at least a decade or two but that's just from knowing that it takes 3-4 years to build simple stuff like libraries and classroom buildings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
China built a couple of CANDU plants and had what was probably a best-case scenario with regards to the lack of cost overruns or delays.quote:Unit 1 was built with the shortest construction period of any nuclear plant in China – 54 months from the first concrete to full power operation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Developed nations also have vastly lower birthrates, which solve all of the "excessive energy use" hysteria all by itself. At per capita consumption rates that are not realistic for 6 billion people. There's a double edged sword at play here whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We do have a problem with energy use in the first world, denying it isn't going to get anti-nuclear folks to understand your point more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Scald posted:China built a couple of CANDU plants and had what was probably a best-case scenario with regards to the lack of cost overruns or delays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:At per capita consumption rates that are not realistic for 6 billion people. There's a double edged sword at play here whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We do have a problem with energy use in the first world, denying it isn't going to get anti-nuclear folks to understand your point more quickly. What's the issue with energy use if it's not producing climate damaging emissions? Energy is something we know how to make, it's largely a matter of the price we pay for it. Coal is cheap but it's also very expensive when you look beyond a 4 year mandate, government plays a big role in determining where the money goes by virtue of levying taxes and providing subsidies (Carbon tax anyone?). I'm thinking purely in terms of electricity here, for myself I take the bus and/or LRT for 95% of my travelling, and the issues associated with lack of density is an entire other line of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:At per capita consumption rates that are not realistic for 6 billion people. There's a double edged sword at play here whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We do have a problem with energy use in the first world, denying it isn't going to get anti-nuclear folks to understand your point more quickly. Energy efficiency has been a primary concern for quite a few years now; per-capita rates are going *down*.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Energy efficiency has been a primary concern for quite a few years now; per-capita rates are going *down*. They are still way too *high*
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Energy efficiency has been a primary concern for quite a few years now; per-capita rates are going *down*. However, we still run into the problem that electrically powering even a reduced amount of transportation would still require substantially more power plants because we have to make our own energy dense fuel, regardless of whether energy is stored as batteries or chemically and can't just burn pre-made oil which essentially just needs to be pumped from an oilfield into an engine (with various steps of refinement in between, but still).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:However, we still run into the problem that electrically powering even a reduced amount of transportation would still require substantially more power plants because we have to make our own energy dense fuel, regardless of whether energy is stored as batteries or chemically and can't just burn pre-made oil which essentially just needs to be pumped from an oilfield into an engine (with various steps of refinement in between, but still). Uhh, how is refining Uranium any more intensive than refining oil?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Uhh, how is refining Uranium any more intensive than refining oil? Who's saying it is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Who's saying it is? Then I'm confused as to why we would need substantially more power plants to make batteries. Unless you have an article saying otherwise, battery creation is probably not any more energy intensive than what we already do to survey for oil, and what we do for uranium mining is probably far below that and even below coal mining. In short (unless you prove otherwise) - Uranium mining + battery making < coal mining + oil surveying+making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:That's... really fast. I was expecting a decade when I read "probably a best-case scenario" and then, blammo, four and a half years. That is China though. When China wants something done, they get it done. It would take quite a bit longer most other places with the red tape and all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:That's... really fast. I was expecting a decade when I read "probably a best-case scenario" and then, blammo, four and a half years. It's a decade if you have to do all the research yourself. In China's case I believe they had French engineers with all their nuclear experience helping during design and construction, hence the relatively fast build. a lovely poster posted:They are still way too *high* Way too high for what? If we use nuclear power it becomes a moot point. If you're talking about waste heat in the atmosphere, once again, there are much bigger eggs to fry before we even think about that. Realistically, climate change will kill most of us off before we ever need to worry about total energy consumption. Let's take things one step at a time... One thing to also remember is that 3rd world nations are going to follow first world nations, and if we keep using coal they will as well (like China has done for the last few decades). It'd be nice to give them an example of what a clean energy source looks like, and the advantages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Stoven posted:The idea is we use that time to work on the other problems, and that if we don't buy ourselves that time we are likely screwed. What are you proposing we do instead? Protagorean posted:You're blathering on about how our energy woes is a societal ill rooted in capitalism. Blathering, maybe. But it's the truth, and nuclear can only forestall the painful fact that capitalism is unsustainable in every sense of the word. Given that in 250 years we've barely accepted that climate change may be a problem, I have no faith or evidence to suggest that our social practices or perspectives will change. Is it really desirable to have a couple hundred more years to continue oppressing people and polluting, extincting, and poisoning the world that we ought to be stewards of? Protagorean, you can say most people don't see nuclear as an end-of-story solution, but the posts I quote below give lie to that statement. The farthest we've gotten is "nuclear, then we'll talk!" In fact, nuclear is a bromide, which may silence this very discussion we're trying to have now. Even the proposition of nuclear puts the conversation on a lower level--"oh, set the alarm for another half hour, I don't have the energy to get up and work right now. We can't talk about the work until I've had enough sleep, get off my case!" Not to psychologize too much, but it's convenient that full nuclear would push the worst impacts of the environmental crisis out of our lifetimes. FaustianQ posted:I'm repeating myself because negative behavior due to surplus energy is a nonissue, as there isn't a practical alternative method deployable within time constraints to meet demand. FaustianQ posted:behavioral change and nuclear energy are not mutually exclusive, can we stop pretending they are? You act as if without sudden sweeping changes to society no change will ever happen. FaustianQ posted:It's really irrelevant to the discussion on "what if later nothing changes", because to do nothing now means there won't be a later to consider. Handwringing about whether humanity will go through the needed behavioral changes later distracts from the discussion of actual solutions[...] computer parts posted:Your solution ends up killing lots of people either deliberately or as a side effect to the policies you want to pursue. The discussion needn't and shouldn't be framed exclusively in terms of maintaining the status quo at the benefit of wealthy humans and the expense of everyone and everything else. Oh dear me posted:So the idea is for nuclear power + a sudden miraculous behavioural change. I don't need to think another solution will work before I can point out the flaw in this one. But if you like, I'll propose a sudden miraculous behavioural change. Edit: I guess since you all are clamoring for an alternative, I can put out my ideal plan. Other than the complete extinction of humans--which on the balance of preserving life and biodiversity, is probably the most desired outcome--here's what might be nice: 1. Ban or heavily disincentivize the luxury products (broadly construed) that flow disproportionately to first world countries. 2. Communalize almost all personal wealth, manufacturing capacity, and research funding and direct these resources towards the support and advancement of people's physical needs (food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care). 3. Only after these changes have been implemented and enforced, roll out nuclear energy on a broad scale, with the long-term goal of developing energy sources that will act as an indirect limit on rate of consumption (the submerged reason for supporting renewables). deptstoremook fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:
As far as combating climate change goes I'm just gonna go right ahead pimping nuclear power instead of wishfully thinking of the death of billions. I just found THIS factbook published by the Canadian Nuclear Association, obviously it's focusing on how we do ours up here but it's very well put together and definitely worth a read if you happened to have any of the questions people have been asking in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Edit: I guess since you all are clamoring for an alternative, I can put out my ideal plan. Other than the complete extinction of humans--which on the balance of preserving life and biodiversity, is probably the most desired outcome--here's what might be nice: So you pretty much want to do exactly what everyone else is saying, including rolling out nuclear power, except you want to wait until global socialism magically establishes itself first? Do you not think these changes, which will be pretty loving huge moves forward for most of the world, will require an initial surge in energy availability? I mean here's people's general idea here: 1. Try to avert impending global catastrophe and huge amounts of destruction, suffering and death by switching to cleaner energy sources 2. Roll this out globally, enabling the developing world to access cheap, clean energy and continue their advancement in a less damaging way 3. As all nations become developed and energy wealthy, eroding the class divide that enables global capitalist exploitation and excessive consumerism to exist, society will be forced to reconfigure - with the potential for a more cooperative system based on equals And your idea is that only in reverse and starting from the exploitative globalised system in full swing. I'm pretty sure you're aware that the history of the 20th century is basically the history of the capitalist hegemony stomping very hard on any form of leftism that poked its head up, so what makes you think it will give way in a world with increasing scarcity, major climate impacts, and the massive social upheaval that will result? There's a huge, yawning chasm between the situation now and the situation where the first step in your plan is socially and politically feasible, and time is limited
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 02:36
|
|