Conservatives and climate change

[citizenzen]

In the USA, in a pretty straightforward manner, Republicans are for energy, and Democrats are against energy. I'm not saying this makes total sense ...

You got that right.

Liberals have nothing against using energy.

What we ask is whether it can be generated with an eye toward long-term sustainability.

Because, we'd kind of like to be around, enjoying the Earth and it's riches, for the long term.

 

[BenBurch]

yes Fukushima is a great example how save nuclear energy has become.
even in catastrophes like erthquake and tsunami only a tiny number of all reactors got into troubles.

Exactly. When I was doing nuclear safety engineering, I never imagined such a damaging an event, but still nobody died.

 

[citizenzen]

Exactly. When I was doing nuclear safety engineering, I never imagined such a damaging an event, but still nobody died.

While a solar panel might have fallen down and killed somebody.

 

[DC]

Exactly. When I was doing nuclear safety engineering, I never imagined such a damaging an event, but still nobody died.

but took me a while to come to that conclusion
first i was also like the other chicke littles, aaah see we can't handle nuclear power savely

 

[mhaze]

im no Obama fan at all or Democrats, but afaik Obama supportet nuclear as part of the energy mix. and funny enough the US citizens voted for the guy among the democrats that supported Nuclear energy. and not one of those that are against it, like hillarious clinton for example.

and i never voted for a democrat. and never will.

Well, what I made was a sort of sweeping generalization. It wasn't specifically about Obama. Although I agree a lot of people got taken in by the false front he projected as a moderate who would "bring people together".

And I'm not trying to make the Republicans look good or the Democrats look bad. I'm just noting that they really are, respectively, pro-energy and anti-energy. Yes, of course you can criticize the boundary conditions and premises of those statements, or the extent to which modeling would predict behavior of those parties. You could argue that each of those parties has in it's way, excessive certainty. And so forth.

But if you vote Democratic, you are voting anti Nuclear.

 

[DC]

Well, what I made was a sort of sweeping generalization. It wasn't specifically about Obama. Although I agree a lot of people got taken in by the false front he projected as a moderate who would "bring people together".

And I'm not trying to make the Republicans look good or the Democrats look bad. I'm just noting that they really are, respectively, pro-energy and anti-energy. Yes, of course you can criticize the boundary conditions and premises of those statements, or the extent to which modeling would predict behavior of those parties. You could argue that each of those parties has in it's way, excessive certainty. And so forth.

But if you vote Democratic, you are voting anti Nuclear.

no worries, im not even allowed to vote for Democrats nor Republicans.

but you do that alot with those sweeping generalizations, not very helpfull in debates

 

[BenBurch]

but took me a while to come to that conclusion
first i was also like the other chicke littles, aaah see we can't handle nuclear power savely

Oh, yeah, when we heard that there was a core breech I was prepared for the worst, but pretty quickly it became apparent that the danger was only local, was being managed, and that what we had here was an expensive mess in the context if a general disaster.

 

[mhaze]

My voting record is pretty evenly split between the major parties and increasingly non-major party candidates, especially in local and state elections. I did not vote for, and do not support Obama, Reed, Pelosi, nor many of the current Democratic party leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support any of the major Republican candidates nor top current Republican congressional leaders either. I vote for candidates that reflect my views and interests and do not campaign on or support issues that I object to, without much regard for party.

Since you mentioned Nordhaus, I note he is the editor of a new book on "Postenvironmentalism..."

I'm definitely going to Kindle it.

Oh, yeah, when we heard that there was a core breech I was prepared for the worst, but pretty quickly it became apparent that the danger was only local, was being managed, and that what we had here was an expensive mess in the context if a general disaster.

Right, yes, reactors are pretty darn safe. It takes someone like Cuomo, a Democrat, to order holes drilled into a reactor vessel to permanently destroy it, so that that threat to mankind can never, ever be used to generate that evil power.

That's the sort of reality behind Democratic double talk about being "pro nuclear" or "nuclear being on the table".

 

[citizenzen]

mhaze,

If you have the time and inclination, could you answer the question I posted earlier?

Thanks.

The closing price for the Chicago scam was a nickel a ton of CO2. The exchange failed. That's the free market at work. That's the rate it values Co2 emissions at....basically, at nothing.

I was unfamiliar with the Chicago Climate Exchange before your posts. Could you explain why you consider it a "scam" and "failed"?

 

[Trakar]

Thing is, mhaze, that you actually don't care about facts or science if you think they somehow might cost you a few dollars.

And one of the big problems with global warming is that, though the costs are going to be a bit further down the road, unchecked global warming is going to cost a lot more money and result in the loss of a lot more choices and freedoms, than dealing with the issues and making the transitions to alternatives while we can still afford to do so. It isn't a matter of paying the costs or not paying the costs, its a matter of how much we pay now, versus how much we pay later.

 

[BenBurch]

...

That's the sort of reality behind Democratic double talk about being "pro nuclear" or "nuclear being on the table".

How many dozen new reactors did Bush build?

 

[mhaze]

How many dozen new reactors did Bush build?

did i argue the problem was essentially at the level of the pesence or absence of presidential leadership?

No.

 

[TheSapient]

And I'm not trying to make the Republicans look good or the Democrats look bad. I'm just noting that they really are, respectively, pro-energy and anti-energy. Yes, of course you can criticize the boundary conditions and premises of those statements, or the extent to which modeling would predict behavior of those parties. You could argue that each of those parties has in it's way, excessive certainty. And so forth.

I'd like to think that most people would at least question all of those things. Can you explain? How does a person who is "anti-energy" behave? For example, I am "anti-murder". While this is more complex than simply being anti-killing, it does manifest itself in being broadly against killing other human beings and in support of various punishments for those who do kill others in most cases.

As a Democrat, how do you expect my opposition to energy manifests? Should I be advocating the removal of power lines and home furnaces? Should I be pressing for punishment for people who use artificial lighting?

 

[Corsair 115]

You know what? I don't care if you don't comprehend the argument. Not trying to be offensive here at all, but the problem is in your head.

Yes, the problem in my head is the fact you readily agree with posts that you think are in agreement with your views in spite of the fact the substance of those posts may not be saying anything specific at all. Indeed, when asked, the poster cannot even explain what they meant by the terms they used. And yet you continue to happily agree with the poster even when this lack of definitional substance and meaning is pointed out to you.

In short, as long as you perceive something to be in agreement with you, you'll seize upon it with vigour, substance be damned. And somehow you don't see that as a problem for you.

 

[mhaze]

And one of the big problems with global warming is that, though the costs are going to be a bit further down the road, unchecked global warming is going to cost a lot more money and result in the loss of a lot more choices and freedoms, than dealing with the issues and making the transitions to alternatives while we can still afford to do so. It isn't a matter of paying the costs or not paying the costs, its a matter of how much we pay now, versus how much we pay later.

that line of thinking is objectively crazy....it translates into the current depression is Good because it reduces some invisible amout of some invisible gas, and we need more of that, for a long time.

 

[TheSapient]

that line of thinking is objectively crazy....it translates into the current depression is Good because it reduces some invisible amout of some invisible gas, and we need more of that, for a long time.

If the current depression were the only way to address global warming in the near term, you'd have excellent point. Since it is not, you may want to re-translate, which should allow you to replace "objectively crazy" with "highly accurate".

 

[citizenzen]

mhaze,

If you have the time and inclination, could you answer the question I posted earlier?

Thanks.

That's odd.

Mhaze has been posting, but for some reason hasn't shown any interest in clarifying his position as I asked ... twice.

He'll nitpick for post after post over the use of the word "easy", but when it comes explaining why he used the words "scam" and "failure" to describe the Chicago Exchange he can't seem to locate his keyboard.

There's a word for that.

 

[Trakar]

If the current depression were the only way to address global warming in the near term, you'd have excellent point. Since it is not, you may want to re-translate, which should allow you to replace "objectively crazy" with "highly accurate".

Who is this masked sapient that beat me to the draw?!


Welcome to JREF!!

Seriously, a global thermonuclear war in the next decade or two would probably save us from the worst effects of global warming and resolve most of the issues with anthropogenic forcings for at least a century or so,...but it is not the only solution, or even type of solution still available or viable (in fact, I'm not sure if there are even enough nuclear weapons still existent to make that "bad among the worst" choices possible).

The fact that we are still capable of investing our way to a resolution with a minimal fraction of our annual economic growth while realizing immediate and future tangible returns on that investment ought to be the rallying cry of business and market oriented thinkers regardless of nominal political persuasion. The problem is, there is advantage for some, for the very short-term, to radicalize rather than rationalize. Status quo is the only pure and consistent conservative (note not "Republican") mantra.

In a constantly changing and growing world, if you are trying to stand still and halt the flow of progress, you are falling behind and doomed to the annuals of history. Stand tall, move forward and grow into the future, or fall back, wither and fade like the leaves of Summer's past. We can't force the world to follow us, but we can show them a viable path and give them an example to follow, which is the only real way to lead in the first place. We need to get rid of the idea that we are the world's richest market, and get back to the concept of being the world's richest marketplace - commercially, technologically, and perhaps most importantly ideologically.
[/flags and soapbox]

 

[TheSapient]

Who is this masked sapient that beat me to the draw?!


Welcome to JREF!!

Hi and thanks! I've been lurking here on and off for years. I'll try not to be too obnoxious.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, the problem in my head is the fact you readily agree with posts that you think are in agreement with your views...

maybe maybe not. You said it confused YOU, I said I didn't find it confusing at all. Nothing complicated. You want to discuss it, I think it's a waste of time. So you (from my point of view) want me to waste my time.

Steal from someone else.

That's odd.

Mhaze has been posting, but for some reason hasn't shown any interest in clarifying his position as I asked ... twice.

He'll nitpick for post after post over the use of the word "easy", but when it comes explaining why he used the words "scam" and "failure" to describe the Chicago Exchange he can't seem to locate his keyboard.

There's a word for that.

Your friend Google whispers to you.