Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues - Part 1

[:eek:]

World Environment Day 2019: 600 million Indian people are facing acute water crisis- Technology News, Firstpost

 

[Aximili86]

You don't care about the science, Elektra, just the narrative.

 

[Donner]

You don't care about the science, Elektra, just the narrative.

I care about the science. You don't know me.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah. "The Maldives will be underwater by 2008!", "you'll have trouble growing vegetables by 2014!" doesn't have any bearing on the public-taking-it-seriously factor. Nah.

20 years of this by now, people understand that there's reality and there's hyperbole. "Is the earth warming?" Yep. "Is it going to cause a torrent of tsunamis due to melting ice and wipe out a billion people in 2040?", or "stop us being able to feed ourselves and we'll have to resort to harvesting bgus as food?" Nah.

So... Again... You are implying thus that it's alarmism that is a bigger factor on responding to the issue and not in any way shape or form the influences of entrenched and financially powerful entities and individuals who use their money and power to undermine scientific findings, efforts to educate the public on the issue and tilt those in political power towards their favor?

That's got LESS to do with it because it's more alarmism? An alarmisn conveniently that you get to define on your own terms and which also lines up with the viewpoints of the previously mentioned powerful interests?

But... That's all coincidence, right?


Or maybe the same types that have somehow made scientists and educators some kind of villified bogeymen using buzzwords like "elites" are herding around the credulous who have more interest in stewing in and nursing their resentments, often unearned by any reasonable measure, and thus fall prey to demagoguery about science, scientists and education, playing into the hands of the actually powerful? And maybe it's not surprising since those that fall into that group also happen to be the same types that fell for the idea that a vulgar conman born into wealth who literally crapped into gold plated toilets was some tribune of the masses (Or those that feel it's their duty to continually defend the well established conmen)? And maybe it's this well funded and organized campaign by these interests who are the actual elites that has contributed far more than any kind of alarmism ever could to public opinion on the subject?

Nah... That's all too outlandish to be true despite it being literally the playbook for nearly every single issue this nation has faced in the modern era when those that profited in some manner from something that ended up being linked to phenomena that others, often scientists, concluded was having a negative impact upon the public welfare got confronted with what they had wrought.

 

[Aximili86]

The same scientists pushing that it's an issue are calling for nuclear as the solution. You guys just dismiss that becasue - yes - it doesn't fit the narrative that we all need to jump aboard this Green Plan stuff.

Again, the narrative is different to the science, the ideology is all here. Otherwise you wouldn't pick and choose the doom-and-gloom and ostracize the actual solutions.

 

[Donner]

Who is ostracizing the solutions? Stop making **** up it's annoying.

 

[moviedoors]

The same scientists pushing that it's an issue are calling for nuclear as the solution. You guys just dismiss that becasue - yes - it doesn't fit the narrative that we all need to jump aboard this Green Plan stuff.

...one can be in favor of both.

 

[Aximili86]

Of course you can't. Nuclear's not even a component of the Green New Deal, by very design.

 

[squeekness]

Anyone who thinks nuclear is clean needs to watch HBO's Chernobyl.

 

[Donner]

Anyone who thinks nuclear is clean needs to watch HBO's Chernobyl.

No, please don't peddle this fear mongering. Chernobyl was caused by many factors including human error and arrogance and subpar materials. Nuclear plants today have much more advanced technology than they did in the 80s and safety regulations are strict. It's a hell of a lot better than coal, that's for sure.

 

[Lighthouse]

I mean if I have to choose between small chances of Nuclear meltdowns and the eventual destruction of life on the planet, the choice is pretty easy.

 

[Aximili86]

Haha, gotta love that Chernobyl's still the barometer for you people, Squeek.

Yeah, France and plenty of the rest of Europe and Canada haven't been using it for 50+ years with no problems. Nahhh. Let's use the commie-run incompetent ****-show from 30+ years ago to fuel our world-view!

 

[moviedoors]

I mean if I have to choose between small chances of Nuclear meltdowns and the eventual destruction of life on the planet, the choice is pretty easy.

Exactly. Nuclear is what's going to help us cut carbon emissions immediately, which we desperately need to do.

 

[moviedoors]

Of course you can't. Nuclear's not even a component of the Green New Deal, by very design.

It's the most glaring flaw of the Green New Deal, but it's better than ****-all.

 

[:eek:]

More nuclear plants isn't what this planet needs. The planet needs that humans stop overusing its resources. We have to change our arrogant thinking that the civilization and economy can continue to grow forever with an evergrowing consumption and population.

 

[Donner]

More nuclear plants isn't what this planet needs. The planet needs that humans stop overusing its resources. We have to change our arrogant thinking that the civilization and economy can continue to grow forever with an evergrowing consumption and population.

This isn't going to happen, sorry. Nuclear is our best option. The world's population isn't decreasing so your line of thinking to just stop overusing resources isn't a solution, it's complete fantasy.

 

[Teelie]

I agree with eek but it's reality like Elektra said that people are just going to be people and ignore what is going on. A compromise to that demand and ignorance is nuclear power until we find a safer, more reliable resource.

 

[moviedoors]

It’s basically the only choice we have if we want to cut carbon emissions before it’s too late.

 

[:eek:]

This isn't going to happen, sorry. Nuclear is our best option. The world's population isn't decreasing so your line of thinking to just stop overusing resources isn't a solution, it's complete fantasy.

Is not a fantasy if the will of changing ourselves is there. Which it sadly isn't at the moment, at least not among the majority of people. Continue overusing the planet's resources and thinking it won't get dire consequences on the other hand is very much a fantasy.

 

[squeekness]

No, please don't peddle this fear mongering. Chernobyl was caused by many factors including human error and arrogance and subpar materials. Nuclear plants today have much more advanced technology than they did in the 80s and safety regulations are strict. It's a hell of a lot better than coal, that's for sure.

No offense, but I've never heard of wind turbines or solar panels contaminating anyone or anything for 100s of years at a time. They don't produce waste that has to be stored or handled like coal or fracking. That was my point. If it's toxic in some way, how can it be "clean"?

 

[Donner]

No offense, but I've never heard of wind turbines or solar panels contaminating anyone or anything for 100s of years at a time. They don't produce waste that has to be stored or handled like coal or fracking. That was my point. If it's toxic in some way, how can it be "clean"?

It's considered clean because it doesn't produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct. It doesn't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. And given that CO2 is causing our planet to warm up and that temperature increase will eventually kill us all, that is considered a win.

Is a nuclear disaster horrible? Yeah of course as Chernobyl has proved. But again, that was because of human error and cheap materials. If there's a car on the road that bursts into flames when it gets into a fender bender, you don't stop driving altogether. You just don't buy a car from that manufacturer.

I implore you to do more research, squeeks. Being afraid of something because of a TV show is quite silly.

 

[squeekness]

I'm not afraid because of a tv show, its fact that nuclear energy creates toxic waste that has to handled, just like toxic coal slurry has to be handled. The fact that nuclear doesn't add to global warming doesn't make it safe if its waste is toxic in a different way. In short term, sure, nuclear could be helpful, but I'd rather see more benign options like solar and wind for long term that create no waste at all.

 

[Donner]

I'm not afraid because of a tv show, its fact that nuclear energy creates toxic waste that has to handled, just like toxic coal slurry has to be handled. The fact that nuclear doesn't add to global warming doesn't make it safe if its waste is toxic in a different way. In short term, sure, nuclear could be helpful, but I'd rather see more benign options like solar and wind for long term that create no waste at all.

Solar and wind isn't enough. For small European towns, sure. But not countries the size of the US, China or Canada. Nuclear is still the best option.

Also, they are working on ways to reuse the waste.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

From what I have looked into it over the years, and I am far from some expert, but sure, it would seem that nuclear power does need to be on the table in regards to transitioning away from fossil fuels/coal. And there is indeed a somewhat irrational free floating fear about it given the stigma of some high profile events that have happened over the course of decades which isn't helped by pop culture and fiction spreading fear of nuclear, like The China Syndrome and the recent Chernobyl docudrama.

Still... @squeekness has a point. Nuclear still has issues in regards to any number of potential negative impacts. It does still produce unimaginable toxic byproducts, the storage and disposal of which is still often controversial if not something which itself poses risks. While there are indeed better reactor designs, nuclear plants still have by the nature of the reaction used to produce power, dangers to the general public under circumstances that while not always common are also not in the "never will happen" category. Fukushima shows that there are risks from natural disasters. And even with better designs there is still the human element to take into account that any reasonable person would see can run the gamut from graft and corruption which could lead to substandard construction or procedures (Let us not pretend that this is NOT some out there idea in regards to either the private sector or government) to malign intent such as terrorist action or just plain old human fallibility and error. There is no place where one could guarantee some kind of exemption from these kind of factors. (And I want us all to imagine the widespread adoption of nuclear power in say, China or India... You think the West has issues with corruption leading to substandard building and procedures... As the saying goes those two nations simply say "Hold My Beer".)


I'm not saying that nuclear should be banned, nor that it has no place in getting the U.S. or China out of the carbon pollution business. But downplaying the real issues in regards to risk is just as bad as being alarmist on the issue. And the real issues from cost, security, storage of waste, vulnerabilities to disasters both natural and man made and on and on are not so readily dismissed if you look at them with even a conservative eye towards their real and potential impact.

Complete antipathy to Nuclear is not being realistic about what is available to be used right now and for the foreseeable future to help the world decrease carbon emissions, which even if one thinks there has been a tipping point passed already, well, adding more doesn't help either in regards to climate change. At the same time though, uncritically embracing nuclear holds potential for disaster also. Frankly I would rather see people cautious and handle the topic with that fear in mind. One of Fear's fellow travelers is Respect. And when it comes to nuclear power of any kind if we are to harness it for our benefit as a species then we really need to respect and fear it's awesome potential.

 

[:eek:]

Building a nuclear plant can take a decade. A new one in Finland that's about to start this year took 14 years to build. We might not have that time:

Arctic Permafrost Is Going Through a Rapid Meltdown — 70 Years Early


And it's not enough to just cutting down on the co2 we continue to release in the future, we need also to take back a lot of the co2 that's been already released. Either by planting more trees or having machines that sucks it up and put it into the ground. If the deforestation of the Amazon among other things continues we're doomed, no matter how many nuclear plants you put up.