|
stephenthinkpad posted:Do Germans actually believe pro nuclear is "anti green"? Within electoral politics, absolutely. Name a party that is pro-nuclear and not anti-green. And that is with us only considering the current situation. And this discussion got to Germany with someone arguing that the CDU is "left wing". And implying that to be pro-nuclear you need to be more right wing. I literally consider convincing the green party to be pro-nuclear more realistic then convincing the CDU or AFD to be anti-grift or pro-nationalisation.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:The idea of economic integration "fixing" Russia seems like an appealing one, if we consider European leaders. Germany and France haven't been shooting at each other for longer than I've been alive, and that's kind of a rare thing historically. By integrating the European core in a market-oriented way, it has created a peace that has held up for some time, and that makes the idea of generalizing that to other nations appealing, I think. And while Russia has now demonstrated it is not the heir to a super-power except in terms of projecting violence, Russia still is a lasting problem for Europe, which is made obvious by taking a glance at a map. And people want to solve that problem somehow. Makes sense when you realise their ideology rejects emperical evidence and material reality. They turned their brains off in preparation for the End of History and can't understand why things keep happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
The ChapoReply Guy posted:I don't find it unfathomable that U.S. vassals with a limited set of options available to them acted the way they did. The people and parties who wanted a different arrangement with the United States were neutralized. Th US didn’t force the EU to largely turn away from nuclear energy (except France) or go all-in on Russian oil and gas. mortons stork posted:Yeah it's pretty galling to attribute fault to the gosh darn hippie tree-hugging lefties when responsibility for all this poo poo lands square on the shoulders of the enlightened centrists who have been running the game and have gotten 100% of what they wanted for the past 2-3 decades, lol Plenty of vocal opposition to nuclear power comes from hippie tree-hugging lefties. It seems to be something of a generational thing: I know several older hippy types who are completely irrational about all things nuclear. It wasn’t enlightened centrists protesting against building new nuclear power plants, or transporting waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Plenty of vocal opposition to nuclear power comes from hippie tree-hugging lefties. It seems to be something of a generational thing: I know several older hippy types who are completely irrational about all things nuclear. It wasn’t enlightened centrists protesting against building new nuclear power plants, or transporting waste. So you believe that protests have more responsibility for government policy decisions then the actual government? That implies that the best way to more nuclear power is to elect the green party into majority coalition partner status. Because then they will lose all their power and the resulting pro-nuclear protests will force the construction of more nuclear power plants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Plenty of vocal opposition to nuclear power comes from hippie tree-hugging lefties. It seems to be something of a generational thing: I know several older hippy types who are completely irrational about all things nuclear. It wasn’t enlightened centrists protesting against building new nuclear power plants, or transporting waste. i'm aware of this stereotype but unaware of when they had authority and power
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:So you believe that protests have more responsibility for government policy decisions then the actual government? I genuinely can’t tell what you’re trying to say here about pro-nuclear protests. Can you clarify? i say swears online posted:i'm aware of this stereotype but unaware of when they had authority and power Anti-nuclear protests have been successful, and did not require the protesters to be in power. Many of those protests have had an environmental justification, and “hippy tree hugging lefties” as either organizers or major contributors. I’m not arguing that they bear the entirety of the blame, far from it. But holding them blameless seems odd to me. The people who protested building new plants and transporting waste got what they wanted, for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I genuinely can’t tell what you’re trying to say here about pro-nuclear protests. Can you clarify? Well you are saying that the Greens somehow dominate energy policy, while not part of the government. So if the pro-nuclear movement wants to dominate energy policy, they should obviously use the same tactics. Which starts with electing the Greens into power, and then staging minor but impressive looking protests. My actual believe is that the centrist "pro-nuclear" parties' power plant shutdown is primarily motivated by people like you. They know you will blame any of their decision on the protestors, and thus feel free to grift away, and do things like pay their donors to money to not run plants..
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Governing elites have notoriously been unwilling to shove unpopular policy decisions that they nevertheless really really like down the proles' throats, as evidenced by the past 30 years of austerity, or gutting the welfare state since basically the introduction of Reaganomics. And hey, don't take my word for it, ask the 2001 G8 protesters how well it went for them last time they tried to have their say. It is, again, extremely galling to read that the left got their way. Where are the renewables? Why are we exhausting the planet's resources at an increasingly accelerated rate despite looming catastrophic climate change? Liberals just took the path of least resistance by powering unprecedented exploitation of the Earth and its peoples through unprecedented burning of fossil fuels, and that is somehow the left's fault. mortons stork fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
so what is you guys theory for why angela merkel made an anti-nuclear turn, if popular anti-nuclear sentiment isn't the reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
tsunamiphobia
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Well you are saying that the Greens somehow dominate energy policy, while not part of the government. This is not what I am saying though. VictualSquid posted:So if the pro-nuclear movement wants to dominate energy policy, they should obviously use the same tactics. Which starts with electing the Greens into power, and then staging minor but impressive looking protests. I’m not sure where the “people like you“ swipe is coming from here. I have no idea who you are, and you don’t know me either. I’ve been an advocate of fission power for a long time, ironically enough because I believe it to be the greenest option available. That is why I find the environmental arguments against nuclear power so frustrating, especially when I am talking to someone who I agree with on pretty much every point except this one. Having had these conversations with older hippy types, both in the US and Germany, who are very proud of the successful protests against new power plants or waste transport, I find the unwillingness to take any responsibility as it becomes increasingly obvious that it was a poor decision quite frustrating. Badger of Basra posted:so what is you guys theory for why angela merkel made an anti-nuclear turn, if popular anti-nuclear sentiment isn't the reason VictualSquid probably thinks it was me :-P
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:so what is you guys theory for why angela merkel made an anti-nuclear turn, if popular anti-nuclear sentiment isn't the reason DeadlyMuffin posted:This is not what I am saying though. The Merkel government wanted to jump on the anti-nuclear bandwagon after the Fukushima disaster made it temporarily big. e: I think because they wanted to distract from their other climate related inaction, but it might have been some other scandal. Now if there actually was a pro-nuclear base within the CDU electorate you would expect those people to decide that turning off NPPs is anti-nuclear and stop re-electing the Merkel government. Which is why the CDU didn't seriously go anti-nuclear before. But what happened what that the actually pro-nuclear voters followed the exact same arguments as presented by DeadlyMuffin and conclude that the most pro-nuclear action possible is to re-elect the government that is currently turning of the nuclear plants faster then ever demanded by the greens. Of course, without even attempting any protests, despite allegedly acquiring unprecedented proof of their effectiveness. When I said "people like you" I meant people who use the same arguments as you are currently using. I suppose in this forum it is not expected that you have similar opinions to other people who use the exact same arguments as you do. I suppose that the old cold war era anti nuclear protests did help with starting the anti-nuclear agenda. But primarily by cementing the anti-nuclear attitudes within the green parties. Then once the greens won elections on other issues they also demanded NPP shutdowns. But the fact is that nuclear power was the first compromise the other coalition partners offered to the Greens. And then the shutdown was cemented by alleged pro-nuclear parties. In part because of the moral hazard where those other parties could blame all negative outcomes on the greens. And in other parts because gas plant shutdowns or gay rights are just much worse then nuclear shutdown to the average voter of a anti-nuclear party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:The Merkel government wanted to jump on the anti-nuclear bandwagon after the Fukushima disaster made it temporarily big. Most of your post reads like "yes the Greens were anti-nuclear but the real villains are those who conceded to them". You're reading a lot of extra meaning into my posts that isn't there. My only real objection is to trying to absolve people who successfully fought against nuclear power from the consequences of that fight. Yes, cold war era anti nuclear protests did help with starting the anti-nuclear agenda. You feeling the need to couch it behind "I suppose" is an example of what I'm talking about. Nobody ever says "we were wrong". Not even old hippies when I point out that had the power plants they protested against been built in the 70s and 80s Europe and the world would be in better shape. Not just geopolitically, but environmentally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Most of your post reads like "yes the Greens were anti-nuclear but the real villains are those who conceded to them". Yes, the real villains where the governments who made the bad decisions. Even if that decision was to compromise with the greens on nuclear shutdown instead of coal plant shutdowns or gay rights. Do you believe that the governments who shut down the plants have more or less responsibility for those shutdowns then the old hippies? And should they also apologise? Do you believe that the people opposing those hippies in the 70s and 80s should apologise for declaring that climate change is not real? And if you let this refusal to apologize influence your political decisions, which of those group's refusal is most important to you? I am probably reading too much into your posts, but you seem to imply that that you consider the green movement as a whole more of a villain, then the climate change deniers that were in power during the 80s. Also, the green parties have consistently demand a slow shutdown of nuclear and coal plants. Slow enough that all shortfalls can be absorbed by improved renewable power without any increases in fossil energy production. The "replace nuclear with coal and gas" was the policy of the centrists who considered that their compromise with the green movement. I do feel like they have much more to apologise even on nuclear issues. But, yes if I met someone who came to the green party for primarily anti-nuclear reasons they should admit that they were wrong about that specific issue. Though the ones that actually know that they were wrong are ready to apologise in my experience. The ones that don't apologise decide such because they still believe that they were right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Do you believe that the governments who shut down the plants have more or less responsibility for those shutdowns then the old hippies? And should they also apologise? Roughly equal. They all should apologize. But the views persist, it isn’t like Europe is starting to crank out reactors. VictualSquid posted:Do you believe that the people opposing those hippies in the 70s and 80s should apologise for declaring that climate change is not real? If that was the reason for the opposition, sure. But I reject the framing that it was a struggle between poor misguided hippies and people denying climate change was real. I have never heard a pro-nuclear argument based on climate change *not* being real. But I wasn’t around in the 70s/early 80s. Im just talking to people who were, and reading about it. VictualSquid posted:I am probably reading too much into your posts, but you seem to imply that that you consider the green movement as a whole more of a villain, then the climate change deniers that were in power during the 80s. Yes, you are absolutely reading too much into my posts here. I’m not making this argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:It is, again, extremely galling to read that the left got their way. Where are the renewables? Why are we exhausting the planet's resources at an increasingly accelerated rate despite looming catastrophic climate change? Die Linke is rabidly anti-nuclear and even wants a export ban on German nuclear technology and a Europe wide ban on nuclear energy. So it did get its way with Merkel's phaseout. In general, the left's claim to being the environmental messiah should be taken with a lot of scepticism. Socialist eastern European states were a scourge on the environment of biblical proportions. The Soviet Union poisoned every river and every person in the country and its carbon footprint was massive. Socialism's track record on environmentalism is so much worse than that of pluralistic democratic market economies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
When was die linke last in power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
Reminder that Austria built a nuclear power plant (AKW Zwentendorf) and then never started it because of a 50.47/49.53 referendum. They had to build a coal plant nearby instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:When was die linke last in power? Somewhere between 1989 and 1990. And only localised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
I don't want to poo poo on Germany's nuclear policy too much, the entire western world outside of France have lovely nuclear power policy. The worst that I am aware of is western wannabe country Taiwan which built a brand spanking new nuclear power plant #4 and decided by both ruling parties to never use it. They even had a referendum to decide whether to restart it and the brainwashed voters voted against it. Their three other old NPP are scheduled to go off line soon and they are expected to rely on import LNG for 40% of their energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:The idea of economic integration "fixing" Russia seems like an appealing one, if we consider European leaders. Germany and France haven't been shooting at each other for longer than I've been alive, and that's kind of a rare thing historically. By integrating the European core in a market-oriented way, it has created a peace that has held up for some time, and that makes the idea of generalizing that to other nations appealing, I think. And while Russia has now demonstrated it is not the heir to a super-power except in terms of projecting violence, Russia still is a lasting problem for Europe, which is made obvious by taking a glance at a map. And people want to solve that problem somehow. There's an interesting bit in one of Timothy Snyder's lectures on the history of Ukraine (you can watch them on the Yale Uni channel on YT for free, seriously a big recommend!) where he says the idea that economic cooperation brought peace is a justification after the facts and that what brought peace in Europe was the realization war was no longer an attractive political proposition for European powers after both Germany and France had suffered through the most crushing military defeats of their history (or in France's case, military victories so costly they might as well have been crushing defeats). Obviously the story of economic cooperation bringing peace was a much more attractive sell to the public (and to themselves). This idea gained even more traction after the relatively peaceful crumbling of the Iron Curtain, but that's a historical anomaly. In addition, you could argue that "trade + economic cooperation = peace and liberal democracy over time" has always been an idea not rooted in reality even in non-Russian Europe, if you look at political events and evolutions in former Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:There's an interesting bit in one of Timothy Snyder's lectures on the history of Ukraine (you can watch them on the Yale Uni channel on YT for free, seriously a big recommend!) where he says the idea that economic cooperation brought peace is a justification after the facts and that what brought peace in Europe was the realization war was no longer an attractive political proposition for European powers after both Germany and France had suffered through the most crushing military defeats of their history (or in France's case, military victories so costly they might as well have been crushing defeats). Obviously the story of economic cooperation bringing peace was a much more attractive sell to the public (and to themselves). This idea gained even more traction after the relatively peaceful crumbling of the Iron Curtain, but that's a historical anomaly. In addition, you could argue that "trade + economic cooperation = peace and liberal democracy over time" has always been an idea not rooted in reality even in non-Russian Europe, if you look at political events and evolutions in former Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary. always reminds me of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dGkiJcEK78
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:There's an interesting bit in one of Timothy Snyder's lectures on the history of Ukraine (you can watch them on the Yale Uni channel on YT for free, seriously a big recommend!) where he says the idea that economic cooperation brought peace is a justification after the facts and that what brought peace in Europe was the realization war was no longer an attractive political proposition for European powers after both Germany and France had suffered through the most crushing military defeats of their history (or in France's case, military victories so costly they might as well have been crushing defeats). Obviously the story of economic cooperation bringing peace was a much more attractive sell to the public (and to themselves). This idea gained even more traction after the relatively peaceful crumbling of the Iron Curtain, but that's a historical anomaly. In addition, you could argue that "trade + economic cooperation = peace and liberal democracy over time" has always been an idea not rooted in reality even in non-Russian Europe, if you look at political events and evolutions in former Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:There's an interesting bit in one of Timothy Snyder's lectures on the history of Ukraine (you can watch them on the Yale Uni channel on YT for free, seriously a big recommend!) where he says the idea that economic cooperation brought peace is a justification after the facts and that what brought peace in Europe was the realization war was no longer an attractive political proposition for European powers after both Germany and France had suffered through the most crushing military defeats of their history (or in France's case, military victories so costly they might as well have been crushing defeats). Obviously the story of economic cooperation bringing peace was a much more attractive sell to the public (and to themselves). This idea gained even more traction after the relatively peaceful crumbling of the Iron Curtain, but that's a historical anomaly. In addition, you could argue that "trade + economic cooperation = peace and liberal democracy over time" has always been an idea not rooted in reality even in non-Russian Europe, if you look at political events and evolutions in former Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary. This is also a good view-point, and arguably is at least sort of similar to Piketty's ideas in Capital in the 21st Century. Nobody reasonable likes Hitler, but in his own extremely stupid way he was a great egalitarian, since his disastrous wars lead to the destruction of so much capital, that nations in Europe needed to, well, somehow feed their kids if nothing else, and make a new life for them, after a war that had destroyed the continent. Capital in Europe was destroyed, and the after-effects there had a great influence in how the "spirit of the sixties" saw the world. We can say that the justification for the ECSC were hubristic, and self-serving, since capital benefited, but I think it's undeniable that all of this conversation (which I mean in the European context, not in this thread) has created an atmosphere where certain ideas are not really examined very closely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:When was die linke last in power? You don't need to be in power or a majority to affect public opinion. Nuclear is not a large or profitable industry, in relative terms. Nothing that allows you to have hordes of lobbyists trawl the halls of power or have a fleet of journalists on payroll. It's also not a compelling or exciting cause that has a lot of ideologically driven activists flocking to fight for it. There's not a lot of pro-nuclear voices at any level. Anti-nuclear groups are not large or dominant but they are persistent and loud. Since that’s the only voice we hear it eventually became accepted fact or conventional wisdom to the large indifferent majority. The same mechanism is at play with GMOs. Agriculture is 1-2% of GDP is most developed countries so selling slightly more efficient varieties of crops is not some incredibly profitable venture you can buy politicians and journalists with and it's not something that inspires people to devote their time and energy to fight for. Small ideologically diven groups can dominate the discussion largely because there is no one on the other side of the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 08:55
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:When was die linke last in power? You don't have to be in power to get your way. Die Linke wanted a cancellation of the phase-out delay and they got what they wanted. I'm arguing against the implication that the left was some kind of voice of reason in the whole debate and we are only in this situation because the evil centrists didn't listen to them. The left was as wrong and stupid as everyone else on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:You don't need to be in power or a majority to affect public opinion. Of course,they are loud and persistant. The media, owned by some interests, would never selectively represent some groups over other, no sir. It would never show someone's best angle and someone else's worst.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 11:27
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Of course,they are loud and persistant. The media, owned by some interests, would never selectively represent some groups over other, no sir. It would never show someone's best angle and someone else's worst. The worst part about nuclear discussion is that people in this (and other) thread are way too young and/or purposefully memory holed anything that happened more than 1-2 decades ago, even though we are talking about an issue that has been in the making for more than 50 years. The origins of the "dirty hippie" anti-nuclear movement didn't grow out of some misguided esoteric bullshit, nuclear power was always inseperable from nuclear armament. And if you are all 25 and cannot imagine a world without terribly loud dirty greens, when I was in school more than 3 decades ago our chemistry teacher was still extremely excited to show us even older propaganda videos about how fantastic nuclear technology both gives us clean energy and allows us to bomb the dirty commies back into the stone age. That was literally a selling point in a video by the some German state education thing (which was out of date at that point already, on 8mm, I give you, but nevertheless was still around). The teacher helpfully added how it was too bad that "we" didn't use it in Korea, back when the commies "didn't have any hope to strike back effectively." Somehow, we still insist on making sure no nation on earth that we don't like develops nuclear power, because it is too dangerous in their hands. However, it is absolutely the solution for our energy problems, because we would never abuse it! So honestly, I have a lot more sympathy for some "dirty old hippie"s misguided stance on nuclear power than someone who thinks the world started yesterday and loud greens were a significant factor in our bad energy policy. Hell, I had to get to university before our nightly Tagesschau news stopped using the term "chaoten" as a blanket description of any green/left associated protest in our country. Conservatives/centrists had decades to invest in better energy tech without having to fear the public opinion being behind the dirty hippies, but there was good profit/idealogical reasons why they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
It is baffling to me how one can allocate equal blame concerning a specific policy to the parties in power implementing it and the parties out of power having opinions about said policy. Regardless of your opinion about what should be done, blame the ones that do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Of course,they are loud and persistant. The media, owned by some interests, would never selectively represent some groups over other, no sir. It would never show someone's best angle and someone else's worst. The reason I brought up GMOs is that it suffered much the same fate in public perception. In fact more so in that it was more or less banned at the EU level. Yet there are no corporate interests that stand to benefit from a ban. Corporations obviously influence policy and public opinion but there are other mechanisms at work and they can be effective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:The reason I brought up GMOs is that it suffered much the same fate in public perception. In fact more so in that it was more or less banned at the EU level. Yet there are no corporate interests that stand to benefit from a ban. Yes, GMOs were chosen as a sacrifice by the centre the same way as Nuclear was. The green protests demanded a stop of polluting energy sources (including nuclear, which was kinda dumb). And the centre compromised by shutting down Nuclear, but not coal or gas. The green protests demanded a more sustainable/less corporate agriculture in general. And the centre compromised by passing harsh gmo regulations, but allowing nitrite abuse and factory farming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
^^^ better points than mine re: GMOsOwling Howl posted:Yet there are no corporate interests that stand to benefit from a ban. Owling Howl posted:Corporations obviously influence policy and public opinion but there are other mechanisms at work and they can be effective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
I think we'll have a hard time untangling how much influence exactly which group had because each country has a bunch of them and different circumstances. But if you advocate kicking puppies for 50 years and someone finally does it...VictualSquid posted:Yes, GMOs were chosen as a sacrifice by the centre the same way as Nuclear was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I think we'll have a hard time untangling how much influence exactly which group had because each country has a bunch of them and different circumstances. But if you advocate kicking puppies for 50 years and someone finally does it... I am not sure if hydro was on the list att. The green demands involved a process lasting 30-50 years, or even longer during which clean power generation methods would have been developed by well funded research. If that process had started in the 70s it would be done by now. Or alternatively that well funded research could have led to actual studies showing that nuclear is cleaner then expected, or that running without nuclear was impossible. The pro-nuclear merkel government (and their counterparts in other countries) stopped all of that. Except some flashy renewable generation that is primarily intended as an export industry, and didn't include funding for storage and transmission to make it reliable. I am not implying that the defunding of that research by pro-nuclear governments happened because they were pro-nuclear. It was because everybody who identified as a pro-nuclear politician att was an austerity worshipper. Which is also one of the reasons why they never actually built new NPPs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Does the green know thorium based reactor is being developed. It's safer than the uranium reactors and its byproduct can not used for nuclear weapon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Does the green know thorium based reactor is being developed. It's safer than the uranium reactors and its byproduct can not used for nuclear weapon? Yes, the pro-nuclear wing of most green parties tends to focus on next generation reactors in our arguments with the rest of the greens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I think we'll have a hard time untangling how much influence exactly which group had because each country has a bunch of them and different circumstances. But if you advocate kicking puppies for 50 years and someone finally does it... Since the early 2010s the plan has been a massive expansion of renewables up to the 80-90% that are feasible without storage and then a stop until large scale storage becomes technologically and economically feasible some time in the 2030s. The Merkel government more or less killed this idea by stopping renewables expansion through legislative means. There hasn't been much movement past ~50% for years now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
For centrist neoliberals the greens are pretty much a fig leaf for how the nuclear lobby isn't giving them lots of money and the fossil fuel one is. Oil, gas and coal have incentives to kill nuclear even more than renewables.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:You don't have to be in power to get your way. Die Linke wanted a cancellation of the phase-out delay and they got what they wanted. I'm arguing against the implication that the left was some kind of voice of reason in the whole debate and we are only in this situation because the evil centrists didn't listen to them. The left was as wrong and stupid as everyone else on this issue. the context here is blut's preposterous claim that anti-atlanticist sentiment from the radical left was a major driving factor in german energy policy. i agree that it is consistent with large parts of that policy, but it's completely bonkers to insist that it was a major driver of what has been the consensus position in german policy since willy brandt, and precisely defined in the schröder-merkel era. that is not to say that one has to be in government to drive policy (populist-right parties have been successful in driving immigration policy, and the left has had isolated successes in e.g. housing and welfare policies), but when it comes to big geopolitical stances like this there is absolutely no point in pointing at this part of the left as a major driver - they are, quite simply, too profoundly marginalised to be such a driver, and have been basically forever. probably the one major win the anti-atlanticists have had since the fall of the soviet union was the refusal of certain european nations to participate in the invasion of iraq, with enormous popular sentiment behind them - and even that turned out to be rather hollow, since most of these countries ended up contributing to the occupation rather shortly after the invasion itself was concluded. there's no rational analysis of modern european geopolitics where the anti-atlanticist left is a major driver of much of anything. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Spice World War II posted:The worst part about nuclear discussion is that people in this (and other) thread are way too young and/or purposefully memory holed anything that happened more than 1-2 decades ago, even though we are talking about an issue that has been in the making for more than 50 years. this is a good post about the pedigree of green and left-wing opposition to nuclear power, by the way; note that everyone's given up even giving lip service to the cause of nuclear disarmament now, and so this position is under pretty serious pressure to shift (as we are already seeing in a lot of youth parties and in more peripheral countries) Blut posted:What? German energy policy has been very much driven by the left wing. The Greens have been a huge influence in pushing anti-nuclear sentiment and anti-fracking policies in Germany over the last 50 years. And Schröder's SPD was the most influential driving force behind the reliance on Russian gas. All of those are completely accepted facts, and all of those have been hugely damaging, terrible policies. like, this involves a ridiculous sleight of hand where the german greens are a left-wing party, specifically an anti-atlanticist one - both patently and obviously untrue, especially over the past decade or so. it also asserts that schröder's SPD - the SPD of the hartz reforms and yugoslavian interventions - is representative of the anti-atlanticist left. the turn towards russian gas as part of energiewende was entirely consensual between the SPD, the Greens and the CDU; it is absolutely not an accepted fact that schröder's SPD was "the most influential driving force" (e.g. https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/return-of-the-king), even if one accepts the ludicrous claim that that party is doing so out of sensitivity to left-wing anti-atlanticist impulses. america has waged more war and killed more people than any other country in the world, without any close competitor. it escalates violence at home and abroad to levels entirely comparable with your "evil" regimes, and in fact is instrumental in propping up several such regimes *including qatar*. it's been a decade since libya and two since iraq - people like this must simply not have any kind of memory. it also asserts a narrative of the russian-georgian war which stands in clear contradiction to our own institutions' official reckoning with them. there is just *so much* that one has to ignore or outright falsify in order to arrive at this guy's position that it's legitimately hard to structure a counter-argument. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2022 17:00
|
|