|
CommieGIR posted:Nukes, nukes, and more nukes. A time machine to funnel fat stacks of cash into fusion research ca. 1975.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 17:15
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
GulMadred posted:Commercial deployment of fusion tech will be subject to many of the challenges faced by fission plants: high capital costs, arduous permitting and inspections processes, infeasibility of private-sector insurance coverage, management+disposal of radioactive wastes, and nuclear weapons proliferation risk. It would enjoy a political and popular-opinion advantage over fission power, but public sentiment could always turn against it (due to cronyism in the allotment of research grants, public-financed plants going badly overbudget, tritium leaks at research facilities, persistent inability to achieve breakeven after spending hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars, or whatever). I doubt that the first-generation commercial plants would be cost-competitive with natgas, unless your time machine can somehow convince Congress to pass a carbon tax. Fusion funding has actually been at remarkably low levels. "We will have fusion power within a generation" assumed a Apollo-style cold war money burning spree.  adding non-US spending brings this up to the "fusion never" line or thereabouts Spending a couple ten billion spread over 60 years instead is super inefficient (at some point you're just paying fusion researchers to go in circles with occasional minimally improved experiments), nobody really expected the existing bunch of prototypes on a shoe string budget to achieve breakeven (also lol national ignition facility lol) and it's a wonder that we even have ITER/Wendelstein 7-x in construction and a semi-coherent plan to build DEMO afterwards. quote:So... what do we acually gain by accelerating fusion research in this hypothetical scenario? Aside from nerdboners. quote:Also - please remember that people are stupid. The Sierra Club has been pre-emptively opposed to fusion power since 1986. Yeah, but people who think ~unnatural~ is a meaningful criticism are a lost cause anyway. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
^no climate thread is complete without an Arkane post  Effectronica posted:Extending the use of nuclear power significantly is not practical on a near-future timescale without the kind of massive effort and expenditure you could also use for poo poo like geoengineering, global modernization of all industrial equipment, and so on. Well, even now before large scale storage becomes crucial renewables have turned out to be a similarly massive effort, though distributed across a larger number of projects. See e.g. Germany: surrounded by a bunch of low-renewable electricity grids to buffer out electricity supply fluctuations allowing us to pretend storage won't be a thing, but already spending the equivalent of two to three nuclear reactor builds per year to make things work. Target cost of the Energiewende is around €500bn, more than enough for Full Nuclearisation Now. Oh, by the way, did I mention my cuntry has hamstrung itself intentionally by axing all funding for nuclear fission research not primarily targeted at waste storage, completely turning the scientific community in the field upside down? Even other countries doing a nuclear exit like Belgium haven't been that braindead. e: in practice, given that it's the EU and Areva Must Be Subsidised (instead of, say, General Electric or Hitachi), we would of course end up with a fuckton of suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Gen III designs still have fundamental safety concerns, but we'll leave that aside for right now. Be more like South Korea. * Settle on a reasonable design of nuclear power plant * Build all nuclear power plants in the country to that design * Save $billions on successive power plants as licensing, shutting down NIMBY court cases, etc. becomes easier since you can just refer to the first nuclear site's trip through legal and development hell and point out it's the same situation all over again. In addition, the construction crew will be able to learn from the ridiculous construction failures on the first site and can avoid repeating them (unlike in a system where you build a ton of one-off nuclear reactors of completely different designs) The UK, in this case, is doing it wrong because the new reactor fleet is supposed to be two French Surrender Reactors at Hinkley point, and then three AP-1000s and two Chinese knockoff reactors (literally, they're a modified version of a copied US reactor) at two different sites. quote:But let's look at the raw cost of construction. Using estimated overnight costs at the low end, $2000/kW, we get $740 billion to replace all the non-nuclear with nuclear as far as current energy generation goes. Using the Moody's estimate of $5000/kW for actual construction costs, we get $1.85 trillion. Not, by any means, a small matter politically, even if only one-seventeenth of US GDP. Global estimates for going nuclear at current levels of electricity generation would in turn require about $12 trillion, about one-seventh of global nominal GDP. Now, I am neglecting renewables, but bear in mind that electrical demand will continue to grow. Germany's €500 billion renewable is one seventh of German GDP, for comparison. It's that Full Renewables Now will be even more expensive than Full Nucular Reactors Now. quote:Just for kicks, bringing everyone up to 10,000 kWh of electrical consumption (about average between the USA and Germany, France, Japan) using nuclear alone would take $40 trillion, more than half of nominal world GDP. Economic development doesn't happen overnight, and building first world-class energy infrastructure of any type from scratch will be expensive. Well, burning coal might be the least expensive option, but that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place. quote:Similarly, you need to develop more people who can work in a nuclear power plant. For the US, we would need roughly quadruple the current amount of engineers, operators, and so on, and for nuclearing the world, nine times as many, and for the just solution, thirty times as many. The best way would be to cadre current people, which in turn would necessitate nationalizing, or probably internationalizing, existing reactors. Along with the expenditures necessary to produce people who have the basis for training in turn. The skilled labor thing is can really slow down a nuclear rollout but given the construction time and general lead up to a nuclear rollout, dumping money into nuclear engineering degrees could still be done early enough to at least somewhat alleviate the issue. And yeah, public opinion in many countries can be an issue, but that shouldn't affect countries without a rich and hysterical public (the only accurate assessment ever made by Sigmar Gabriel  )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:And this (all the posts so far on this page) is why I find things like this self-congratulatory technocracy annoying -- the solution can't be the admittedly neat tricks our best engineers can pull, those are just fixing a fraction of the symptoms at best. We need fundamental change in how our systems of administration and economics work. We need to reward totally different kinds of behavior and have totally different incentives. Most developing countries don't have enough CO2 emissions from electricity generation to matter (the main exceptions are basically China, India, Brazil all of which can and do have nuclear programmes), and don't have the education infrastructure to teach nuclear engineers. So if the least developed countries in the Southern Hemisphere burn oil and natural gas to fuel their economy for a bit longer, that's not ideal but not the end of the world either, and if the job description isn't "run a first world economy with an existing electricity grid 24/7" but "provide light to a farming village 50km from the nearest power line, and occasional outages in a calm night are still better than nothing" then putting some solar power or wind turbines next to the village might well be the most sensible option. Regarding underlying causes: that's all well and good, but environmental damage and climate change are happening right now and will take a very long time to reverse, so treating the symptoms of land use, pollution, and CO2 emissions by making our (industrialised countries) high impact lifestyles even more hilariously energy intensive but less land and emissions intensive is a useful thing to do even if you don't think that's enough to become long term sustainable. How are u posted:The fact that the majority of eco-warriors consider nukes a non-starter and yet are trying to advocate for green energy is just so, so depressing. The issue is that a lot of environmentalists don't operate under a framework of seeking pragmatic solutions to environmental problems no matter what the solution looks like. Historically, environmentalism has often involved fighting the ~system~ or picketing corporations and economic development has obviously caused quite some damage to ecosystems so just developing in a different direction or throwing energy at problems to make them go away is quite a radical way to go about things. In addition, you get a lot of people who generally want a more ~connected~ society (everyone should grow their own food or at least know their farmer and produce electricity locallly, so decentralisation is a goal in and of itself), have an issue with the concept of a corporation itself and/or need a clear villain (Monsanto is a special kind of evil, not just a generic uncaring business), have an idealised view of nature and ~natural~ things vs. technology, and what have you. Centralised big nuclear power stations powering dense cities and factory farms are thus anathema, even if some The people worth targeting most are those who just adopted these positions by cultural osmosis and are sufficiently lukewarm about them to be convinced to follow different approaches.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just a somber reminder that we've likely already hit 1*C change thanks to all the extra CO2 from the fires in Indonesia And that won't get better - rainforests become more vulnerable after initial disturbance because they need quite a while to rebuild the dense vegetation that maintains high humidity and thereby lowers fire risk, so regrowth forests (and newly-exposed forest edges) will be more easily burned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup, and Rainforest in South America is still being decimated at an alarming rate. Conservation-wise I sometimes look at coastal rainforest fragments on the map and ask myself if it's even worth preserving them since many are too small to function as a rainforest ecosystem  quote:We're already halfway to the 2*C limit that we set for ourselves. And we're barely into the 2000s. quote:Having to explain to multiple people that nuclear reactors cannot blow up like nuclear bombs is frustrating. Half of the people I explain this to have been under the assumption thank to years of misinformation that nuclear power plants are like nuclear bombs in your back yard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
People have had piles of money thrown at them by conservative think tanks to prove climate change wrong, and all results that don't revolve around a rant about  Obummer end up saying "climate change is happening, we're a major cause, climate scientists may have gotten minor details wrong but the overall conclusions are valid" at most.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:Climate Change: What was to be Done? Not giving up because it can always get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Also beef is especially bad, chicken and most seafood that isn't harvested by running an already-declining fishery into the ground is less bad, and pork is somewhere in between.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Batham posted:The nuclear powerplants in Belgium had their lifespans extended by at least 10 years. Green parties and many green NGOs appear to be stuck in the 1960s when any environmentalism was good environmentalism. They're still ok at saving individual species or habitats, but have wasted much of their potential to make society more generally sustainable once environmentalism became accepted by people other than hippies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Also it's good to aim for an ambitious target because missing it slightly still won't mean we're completely hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:GIven that the temperature has already increased by 1C with less than a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature increase would continue even if we were to stop emitting CO2 today, we can be pretty sure that it does not take one doubling to increase the temperature by 1C. Or we just build enough nuclear powerplants to ensure the climate isn't completely and utterly hosed if the global communist revolution somehow doesn't happen in the next ten years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Basically "all countries recognise it is a serious problem and plan to eventually have a coherent idea of what to do about it" is where climate conferences should have been a decade or two ago so this is just slow progress like in every other area of politics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Markets are fickle and irrational, so a bunch of large economies declaring "hmm yeah climate change is bad and we should really do something about it, kinda soon" can be bad for fossil fuel companies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Nobody who is grounded in reality seriously believes in less than 2°C of warming. More realistically, we're aiming for anything below maybe 2.5 or 3°C.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Hey guys, have a laugh at this dudes COP meltdown: Vilified like the slave trade? Good 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Verge posted:I think you misunderstand, there are hydroelectric dams that don't kill fish. We need to get rid of the ones that do, [kill fish] however. Rime posted:Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Rime posted:Canadian provinces are busy selling off our multi-billion dollar profitable hydro utilities to private operators, for pennies, so I guess I'm not really one to talk. But why would you possibly sell off unprofitable parts of public enterprise into magically more efficient private ownership? Nobody would buy them!  computer parts posted:Though to be fair in Germany the only effect that seems to have is making it more likely that all the nuclear plants get shut down in favor of coal. Germany isn't exactly a country with mostly state-owned power infrastructure either. It's basically 4 large not-regional-monopolies and a bunch of smaller competitors angling for a bigger share of subsidies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Living in a major economy where those meddling greens get to sit in various governments gives another perspective  , but even in the US where greens are less of a factor and have yet to complete the transition to bleeding heart neoliberals, it's never not funny to see them take the same side as coal companies or be turbo conservatives of a different shade.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
The green party doesn't need its own congresscritters for wacky paleoenvironmentalism () to have nonzero effects on derailing actually sustainable things. Poll people on "nuclear power is environmentally friendly, yes/no?" and the reason that at least a good proportion of people will answer no is not entirely unrelated to every environmentalist organisation ever decrying nuclear as the worst thing since sliced bread for a good long time. Of course, every fossil fuel company ever also wants less nuclear to sell more coal and gas fired power stations, but it's silly to suggest that environmentalist hysteria doesn't make their job easier by making anti nuclear everything look better and by providing talking heads on TV and as advisors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. This is one reason we do not create incentives to develop it. In contrast, renewable energy is uneconomical without public support. Public support is high. This is one reason we create incentives to develop it. You underestimate the hysteria of the uninformed, and everyone (including all of us smugging about the mighty atom on the internet) is uninformed about most things because time is limited and people do things besides reading the news and educating themselves about technical details.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
hey now the proportion of vegans is increasing and whole foods of all things rakes in as much money as ~monsanto~ also note the distinction between "nonzero negative effect" and "sufficient as a sole driver"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering vegans make up 0.5% of the US population I'm firmly comfortable saying they have a zero negative effect. The link between veganism and Whole Foods is pretty odd, though - you are aware they sell plenty of animal products there? Whole foods is about organic farming, a thing that people usually care about because
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Look we are splitting hairs here, "dumbass regressive wannabe-greens are bad" and "media hysteria and fossil fuel lobbying are larger contributors to anti-nuclear sentiment" are not mutually exclusive.Radbot posted:Sure thing, champ. Now tie that back to the issue at hand. Greens don't have congresscritters in Amerikkka but environmentalism has a nonzero influence on society and should thus make sure it's a good influence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
 I'd take having an anti nuclear green party congresscritter over having every environmental NGO screaming at the top of their lungs that nucular is bad any day. The former is one more dumb congresscritter (but I am repeating myself), the latter tells everyone that nuclear power is bad for the environment, gives everyone on the planet cancer, and hates freedom In addition, there exists a world outside Amerikkka where nuclear reactors can also be built and where greens actually get elected on top of anti nuclear wannabe-environmentalist screeching.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:two months running but  atomzbut environmentalist freedom hating librulz
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What does that have anything to do with the fact that an invisible gas leak or a coal ash spill that's only directly affecting one (usually very poor) community doesn't make great news? That it's either not scary because it doesn't have enough scary buzzwords or not worth caring about because good red-blooded muricans are not pinko lieberals that care about dumb things like pollution.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:The continued insistence that the green party has no effect whatsoever on Nuclear power is bewildering, there's all sorts of examples to show why they are a significant contributor to more plants not being built. Germany is the obvious example but it happens everywhere. gently caress the greens, their supporters are worthless morons on nearly every issue. also Belgium, where the population actually doesn't have a hate boner for nuclear power and it took greens in government to get a nuclear exit plan eigenstate posted:The Soviet block was renowned for its environmental protection and clean energy generation. Also, Maggie Thatcher was an environmentalist visionary. hmmm no but neither will green government lead to effective environmental protection~ (green parties are useful to provide a voice that points out we should do something about the environment, but are not useful when it comes to making effective environmental policy)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Also GMOs and generally methods of sustainability and climate change adaptation involving anything that could be termed intensive agriculture.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:how come so We got... * protected species lists (which haven't changed much except for growing some more and having some bans for collecting individual specimens extended to include imported things) * loads of little nature reserves around particular habitats/species (which often end up going to poo poo due to being small) * only sometimes national parks large enough and in sufficiently undisturbed areas to keep working without management * rubber dinghies throwing themselves in front of Japanese whaling ships All of these things work as well or as badly as they did in the 1960s and are only effective when focused on a small scale or on very well defined targets (i.e. save the whales or particular patches of land) while being grossly inadequate when dealing with climate change effects or when applied to minimising damage from land use or fishing across entire nations. It generally takes quite a lot of effort to get an organised programme going like in the case of the EU habitats directive which gives blanket protection to the entire area used by populations of target species or target habitats and penalises degradation of these habitats. Even in this case country-level conservation policy had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s state of the art during the 2000s with this likely-accidentally-effective directive and the EU still spends conservation money mainly on scaled-up land sharing (i.e. organic farms) rather than on land sparing (i.e. sustainable intensification). suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:From a US perspective, I would add: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Those are just off the top of my head. All do massive amounts to protect our environment and society to this day. El Perkele posted:That's a weird list since it only contains very particular aspects of environmental policy and completely disregards stuff like water and energy management, urban planning, ecosystem services etc. Saying that "green governments cannot lead to effective environmental protection" is a pretty bold claim. I could just as well claim that social democratic governments cannot lead to effective socialdemocratic societies, and say that minimum wage laws are a relic. It's not quite solid enough - and green movements and parties have been at the forefront of actually drafting and proposing environmental legislation, often against considerable adversity from other political factions. Oh, and the most visible EU conservation projects in Baltic area are area conservation and water/soil management projects, not organic farming, unless farming subsidies are lumped underneath conservation policies, which just makes everything insane That's kind of my point though: Environmentalists provide pressure that gets policy makers to realise we should actually do something to conserve nature and maintain natural resources, resulting in policy which in some cases is actually useful. The US never had greens in government or even any green congresscritters yet got the conservation policy Trabisnikof mentioned. In the EU it's similar with only a small number of elected greens outside of some specific countries like Germany. EU directives get imposed top-down on all countries to surprisingly strong effect and secondarily lead to more country-level larger scale conservation as a follow-up because of the directives' initial success. And yes, there have been attempts to redirect EU farming subsidies into conservation so they should count. As farming is the major land use cause and the main driver of habitat loss together with climate change, subsidising environmentally sustainable farming must be part of conservation - ignoring this means basically giving up on effective conservation of anything not in a protected area. One of the early EU examples was money for letting fields fall fallow to promote declining farmland biodiversity in addition to reducing overproduction. This turned out to be something of a failure because taking intensive heavily fertilised farmland out of cultivation and expecting low-to-mid nutrient communities to magically appear in a few years is just nuts. Right now, according to the common agricultural policy, we'll spend tens of billions of euros on various environmentally-motivated farming subsidies which are advertised as quote:'Greening' of 30% of direct payments to farmers will be linked to three environmentally-friendly farming practices: crop diversification, maintaining permanent grassland and conserving 5%, and later 7%, of areas of ecological interest as from 2018 or measures considered to have at least equivalent environmental benefits. Permanent grassland is meh, it may or may not be anything more than a biodiversity desert (but it's green and nice to look at) depending on the relevant area's land use history and how the grassland is used. Crop diversification is not really conservation relevant unless you manage to link it to reduced fertiliser or pesticide use. Conserving bits of areas of ecological interest in the middle of farm land is a losing proposition in any scenario where runoff is a thing. "At least equivalent environmental benefits" can at least be reinterpreted to something resembling land sparing, though I don't think this is being done in practice to any meaningful extent. Instead of subsidising organic farming we should subsidise restoring large scale ecosystem processes by having large non-agricultural areas with large animals or other ways of getting moderate levels of disturbance to keep these processes going. Freakazoid_ posted:I would say Monsanto and GMOs are inseparable at this point. I know GMOs could be used for good, but they're currently being used for bad and we need to address that first, even if it means hampering GMOs for a while. In addition, I don't see how Monsanto is any worse than [insert arbitrary multinational corporation], the main ~monsatan~ stories are either really old (yeah let's beat a dead horse about who produced agent orange for the Vietnam war 50 years ago, in other news I think trying to hold the Honourable East India Company accountable for exploiting colonies ca. 1600-1870 in 2015 provides any benefit beyond a symbolic statement) or not actually true (no, Monsanto didn't actually go out of their way to sue people whose fields have some GM crop contamination, and no, Indian farmers aren't killing themselves over evil Monsanto debt specifically). Aside from that, Monsanto and GMOs are only inseparable in the public opinion because idiots keep crowing about how they are one and the same, ignoring the existence of multiple other large agricompanies and public or semi-public research efforts (see e.g.: Rainbow Papaya, Golden Rice, last year's low-methane-emission rice, the African Orphan Crop Genome project).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:A big part of it is anti corporatism too, see goon on last page saying monsanto and GMOs are 'inseparable'. the venn diagram of generic anti-corporatism and thinking environmentalism means worshipping mother nature and living in warm embrace with her consists of two concentric circles
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Rime posted:Whether or not this is true hinges on the assumption that allowing hundreds of millions (billions?) of people to subsist in abject poverty is an objective "good", compared to them never existing due to a lack of carrying capacity in the food supply. Human birth rates increase, not decrease, in the face of adverse conditions. Also are you advocating intentionally starving people to death as active population control 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Rime posted:Population booms don't trickle off as the food supply does, and Borlaug dropped the biggest crop yield advancements since the industrial revolution on the world and then peace'd out. These crop yields dramatically increased population growth in undeveloped nations, because god forbid any government anywhere take steps to stop humans breeding like vermin (see reactions in this thread), population growth which continues to this day. it's called secure livelihoods combined with education and family planning it's working pretty well, birth rates are plummeting towards 2.1 across the third world except in war torn hell holes, and human population growth has already reached the point where exponential growth has obviously become logarithmic growth
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If the new farming methods first increase crop yields a lot and then a while later cause the land to become barren they are obviously bad and lead to increased suffering on the whole. hence let's deploy more targeted application of water and fertiliser along with more resource and water efficient GMOs to deal with the downsides of early "oh poo poo we gotta do something" type intensification
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
parcs posted:If you look back far enough it is pretty obvious that more food = more babies. Mainly childhood mortality actually and a lot of that is disease rather than starvation. Also that 9.5 billion is due to a strong reduction in birth rate. Worldwide average went from >4 to2.5 per woman. You are dumb and wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:What do you believe Monsanto has done? I would like to know the same. Also "there's nothing to debate if you will never accept what monsanto has done" is pretty rich considering I was vaguely anti GMO and wary of Monsanto before actually thinking and reading about the issue. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:Wasn't your original claim that green-led governments cannot lead to effective environmental conservation? I don't see how this proves that it any way. Countries with very strong green parties (e.g. Germany) are implementing completely bone headed policies that are either brought forward when greens are in a coalition government or loudly cheered on by greens. This is not just the nuclear exit, which was originally decided by a green/social democrat government before Merkel's flipflopping between shelving the nuclear exit and shutting down everything ASAP, but also fetishising small scale grassroots action beyond being an effective tool to get people involved in climate change action or conservation and turning it into an insane decentralisation fetish and the idea that every action should exclusively be evaluated by its local origins and impacts. The latter leads to our glut of tiny worthless nature reserves that keep becoming more poo poo due to being tiny which is only just starting to be corrected because the deficiencies of this approach are now blindingly obvious. Even worse, any large scale infrastructure necessary for the German renewable rollout such as large scale power lines or hydro reservoirs is opposed not only by NIMBYs but also by outraged greens who can't see the forest for the (moderate number of felled) trees and do their best to make their own overly expensive idea completely impossible to implement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
e: El Perkele posted:That's just pure insane bullshit and you know it. Salt Fish posted:Unfortunately we don't live in the alternate universe where GMO technology is used in a thoughtful perfect way. We live in *this* world where its used in imperfect ways. Just like a gun is not "just a tool" and has social and cultural connotations more significant than its literal form, so too do GMO foods. replies moved into the GMO/farming/etc. thread. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 09:47
|
|