The "Green" movement

[Boozy]

The rest of the first world realizes this, which is why they are drilling like mad and don't let environmentalists, run their government. Even the French are embracing nuclear power plants and I don't know of a more pacifistic people on the planet.

I can think of lots of cultures far more pacifist than the French, but that's beside the point.

Nuclear energy is clean and safe. If environmentalists ran my country, they'd be building more nuclear plants, not less.

AFP is saying that its pointless to destroy the eco-system and land that supports you in order to get a few more decades of the high life. Eventually, the way we live will need to change, whether in ten years or 100, and when it does, the US will need a healthy environment to support itself.

[ebonyknight]

Nuclear energy is clean and safe. If environmentalists ran my country, they'd be building more nuclear plants, not less.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfi...new_nucle.html

*This time, power companies are positioning nuclear power as a boon to the environment, a clean alternative to the carbon-emitting power plants that contribute so mightily to global warming. The green movement that coalesced in the battle against nukes in the 1970s and '80s is not exactly embracing nuclear this time but is very much split on the question. Although Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, has not warmed to nuclear, other politicians who once recoiled at the idea of more nukes -- such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ("I have a different view on nuclear than I did 20 years ago. . . . It has to be on the table") -- are pronouncing themselves open to the concept.*

*About 70 percent of U.S. energy sources -- oil, natural gas and coal plants -- burn carbon. To merely maintain a 30 percent level of sources that do not emit carbon, and even assuming a big increase in the use of wind and solar power, the country would need to build more than 40 nuclear plants by 2020, says Dominion's vice president for nuclear support services, Gene Grecheck.

He's the first to say that's not going to happen. But the rest of the world is leaping into nuclear expansion, with 30 reactors planned in China alone. And the U.S. government has made it easier for utilities to seek new plants, compressing the permitting timetable, providing tax credits for companies that apply for a license by the end of next year and insuring utilities against delays caused by lawsuits. Still, opening a new reactor remains a decade-long process.*

I assume you are NOT talking about the United States.

AFP is saying that its pointless to destroy the eco-system and land that supports you in order to get a few more decades of the high life. Eventually, the way we live will need to change, whether in ten years or 100, and when it does, the US will need a healthy environment to support itself.

So are you telling me that you (or she) will be first in line to give up the products listed that are petroleum based? Are you both ready to lose your current standard of living?

[the_std]

Boozy lives in Ontario, Canada. And just because Al Gore isn't into nuclear energy doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Of course it's impossible to switch over to nuclear right now. But investing in it for the future would be a start.

There are no "fix it now" solutions.

[protege]

I'd be surprised if any new nuke plants were built in the US. Too many people remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. From what I've read, TMI did *not* have a meltdown, and if any radiation was released, it was a tiny amount. Chernobyl, on the other hand, literally blew up because of human error. At the time, they were running a (dangerous) test...and had disabled all of the safety mechanisms. 20 years on, the area still hasn't recovered from that--it's all still radioactive, and will be for several hundred years. Oh, and several thousand people getting nuked didn't help matters either.

Because of that, it's not surprising that people here do not want nuke plants. Even though accidents are rare, even though they're much cleaner and powerful than coal plants, they still don't want them, or even new coal plants as well. Then they bitch and moan about brownouts/blackouts in the summer, and pollution the rest of the year.

We need to do something soon--we've already seen NYC shut down when they lose power. Demand for power isn't going away, yet we're not building new plants. What's really going to tax those plants...is all the electric cars (I mean the ones you plug in) people want. Producing electricity by burning coal produces a crapload of pollution. Ramp up the demand, and it's only going to get worse, unless we can build some cleaner plants.

[rahmota]

I don't think you understand. Life as you know it will end. We will literally be thrown back into the mid 1800's in terms of lifestyle. Are you willing to make THAT sacrifice?

Yes most of the things on your list are not mission critical for living. I personally have already moved away from a good deal of those things and feel a lot better for it. I try to use organic or natural materials whenever possible. nmost of my furniture is at least 50 years old and made of real solid wood. When I need something I go to the amish to get it as they make things using traditional methods. If you asked me to go back to an 1800s lifestyle I would not have a problem with it. Then again I am probably in the great minority as too many americans are fond of their lazy material wealth selfish lifestyle. Personally i think america could use a bit of an oil shortage to show people just how useless adn worthless most of the things americans hold as valuable really are.

[AFPheonix]

So are you telling me that you (or she) will be first in line to give up the products listed that are petroleum based? Are you both ready to lose your current standard of living?

No, I fully understand what other uses petroleum has, chances are, I have more of a chemistry background than you give me credit for.
Other countries are drilling like mad because they'll know we'll buy their stuff. They're not using it all for themselves.
Boozy understood my point. Ok, so we drill and use up every last drop that we have left on our portion of the continent. That gives us a grace period of 10 years. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Carbon for use in those other products can come from other places too, ya know. There's just not much of a market yet for people to come up with a new idea yet. Also, by developing alternative fuels and energy sources, we'll have MORE petroleum able to be allotted for use in all those products you listed.

[Boozy]

I assume you are NOT talking about the United States.

No, as I said, I was talking about my country. Canada is the world leader in the manufacture of nuclear reactors. There's a lot of support here for this kind of energy both from the business and environmental lobbies.

So are you telling me that you (or she) will be first in line to give up the products listed that are petroleum based? Are you both ready to lose your current standard of living?

You're making it seem like we have a choice. We do not. Our way of living is not sustainable. So we have two choices: We change the way we live now, gradually, on our own terms. We invest heavily in researching petroleum alternatives, and live, work, and produce our food locally. And most importantly, we start looking at our "standard of living" in a different way. Quality of life is not measured by the amount of consumer crap we have in our over-sized houses.

Or we wait until the environment is destroyed, we're out of oil, and we are thrown kicking, screaming, and completely unprepared into the Dark Ages.

[rahmota]

Boozy has to absolutely right. We have three choices only one of which is logical.

Choice 1: make the changes in technology, lifestyle and attitudes so that we can maintain a reasonably decent, yet maybe not as lavish and consumptive one as we do now, lifestyle and sustain it for our future posterity. This means reduce, reuse, recycle becoming a major mantra for everyone. Alternative energy sources becmoing the mainstream ones. People treating the world as a fragile deleicately balanced system instead of a resource to be used up and to hell with the future or the rest of the world.

Choice 2: Keep going like we have or even worse accelerae down the road to ruin. Suck the planet dry of all its resources. Cause more conflict and wars over the dwindling resources until someone gets the bright idea to use all those shiny missles to take control of what resources there are before someone else does and we all wind up glowing in the dark. Remember the struggle for resources has always been the prime reason for conflict. From the first 2 cavemen arguing over a spring to the western us states over water rights. Now imagine the last oil well in production. How many countries are goign to be fighting for that last bit of oil if we are still running full bore to hell and gone.

Choice 3: aka the whedon method. Pack up and find someplace else..Hmmm too bad there is no place else we can get to. So we're kinda stuck right now with what we have so we better make the best of it. Titan has oceans of oil. Maybe figure out someway to exploit that. Too bad that using current technology that oil would cost 8 grand on ounce or something like that.

So basically right now the only option available is to reduce our consumption, reuse and recycle our resources as much as possible, and invest in research and development of practical alternative methods of material production. So this means rabid capitalist consumerism cannot last forever. So what? there isnt too much about it that makes it worthy of survivng anyhow. All it does is turn people into selfish, greedy pigs screaming and holloring abobut how harsh the world is if they can't drive their gas hog SUV across the block to get their triple grande mocha latte with extra foam.

[ebonyknight]

Boozy has to absolutely right. We have three choices only one of which is logical.

Choice 1: make the changes in technology, lifestyle and attitudes so that we can maintain a reasonably decent, yet maybe not as lavish and consumptive one as we do now, lifestyle and sustain it for our future posterity. This means reduce, reuse, recycle becoming a major mantra for everyone. Alternative energy sources becmoing the mainstream ones. People treating the world as a fragile deleicately balanced system instead of a resource to be used up and to hell with the future or the rest of the world.

Choice 2: Keep going like we have or even worse accelerae down the road to ruin. Suck the planet dry of all its resources. Cause more conflict and wars over the dwindling resources until someone gets the bright idea to use all those shiny missles to take control of what resources there are before someone else does and we all wind up glowing in the dark. Remember the struggle for resources has always been the prime reason for conflict. From the first 2 cavemen arguing over a spring to the western us states over water rights. Now imagine the last oil well in production. How many countries are goign to be fighting for that last bit of oil if we are still running full bore to hell and gone.

Choice 3: aka the whedon method. Pack up and find someplace else..Hmmm too bad there is no place else we can get to. So we're kinda stuck right now with what we have so we better make the best of it. Titan has oceans of oil. Maybe figure out someway to exploit that. Too bad that using current technology that oil would cost 8 grand on ounce or something like that.

So basically right now the only option available is to reduce our consumption, reuse and recycle our resources as much as possible, and invest in research and development of practical alternative methods of material production. So this means rabid capitalist consumerism cannot last forever. So what? there isnt too much about it that makes it worthy of survivng anyhow. All it does is turn people into selfish, greedy pigs screaming and holloring abobut how harsh the world is if they can't drive their gas hog SUV across the block to get their triple grande mocha latte with extra foam.

Actually, boozy only gave two choices. Neither of which will happen. You gave the right choices. Guess which one will happen? I will give you a hint. We are at war now and there is still little progress on choice one after THIRTY years. We could decide to send a man to the moon and accomplish it in 9 years, but this apparently is beyond us. You may not see my alternative as viable, but it will buy more time. If things get bad enough, then change will come, but it will not come with a whimper, but with a bang. These guys are out of touch and until things burn, they will not change.

*shrug*

[AFPheonix]

Change started in the 70's once it was more economical to do so. We're getting to a point again where energy is expensive enough to start making people change their habits and companies are seeing profit in at least being seen as more efficient and green. While I'm not a libertarian by any means, I do think market forces to a degree can cause change in a good way on this front, but only when we're to a point where it makes more sense financially to do so.

[Difdi]

I don't think you understand. Life as you know it will end. We will literally be thrown back into the mid 1800's in terms of lifestyle. Are you willing to make THAT sacrifice?

Oh, it's worse than that. No fossil fuels drops us back to mid 1800s. No whale oil would then kick in, dropping us back to about the early 1500s. Then there's the problem of massive logging and having less wood than the world did in the 1500s. Problem is, there isn't much to drop back to without wood to burn.

The rest of the first world realizes this, which is why they are drilling like mad and don't let environmentalists, run their government. Even the French are embracing nuclear power plants and I don't know of a more pacifistic people on the planet.

In the State of Washington, it's a little-known fact, but the environmentalist lobby has succeeded in getting hydro-electric power plants dropped from the list of renewable power sources, while at the same time getting legislation passed that mandated that any new power plant construction in the state must be of renewable types.

[rahmota]

You may not see my alternative as viable, but it will buy more time.

And why do we need to buy more time at the expense of continuing our wasteful selfish lifestyle? As you and others have stated real change will not come to the companies and people responsible until it comes screaming down on them with all the force of an empty oil reserve. Would it not be better to keep the reserves in ,well, reserve in case the technological changes do not come about as quickly or as effectively as they need to be.

In the State of Washington, it's a little-known fact, but the environmentalist lobby has succeeded in getting hydro-electric power plants dropped from the list of renewable power sources, while at the same time getting legislation passed that mandated that any new power plant construction in the state must be of renewable types.

I have read about that. The reason given was that the hydroelectric plants are depleting the salmon and other fishieries by makign it impossible for them to get back upstreama nd spawn, heating the water etc... I'll agree that was not a great manouever as the problems can be dealt with quite easily. Just not cheaply as dams would have to be built to take the concerns into consideration.

[ebonyknight]

Would it not be better to keep the reserves in ,well, reserve in case the technological changes do not come about as quickly or as effectively as they need to be.

Is that not what has happened?

We need to continue to buy time. At this rate, the country will grind to a halt. A reserve is NO good, if it's never used. But we aren't to that point yet, because we can still drill. So let's drill.

[AFPheonix]

Not really, as the reason fuel is very expensive is not due to supply issues as it is speculators driving up the price.

[ebonyknight]

Not really, as the reason fuel is very expensive is not due to supply issues as it is speculators driving up the price.

Well then, if that's true...then we can expect a bubble to burst on the price then. Care to 'speculate' when that will happen?