Global Warming Issue: Why no decisive action?

[K. A. Pital]

Because the environmentalists prevent the full unleashing of nuclear power as in France due to Chernobyl (which is an example of Soviet/Red incompetence not the evils of nuclear power) and Fukushima (the fact that the plant withstood such a large quake is good news).

Chernobyl and Fukushima are, however, an example of the "evils" of nuclear power - mainly the fact that heavy radioactive contamination persists for a very, very long time and makes territory unsuitable for life. Anti-nuclear crazies notwithstanding, I can understand why some people have issues with nuclear power.

Besides, the anti-Global Warming nutjobs don't give two shits about "nuclear power". The US, biggest GW contributor and pollution source in the world hasn't been active in nuclear power construction for decades.

Anti-environmentalism does not result in abundant nuclear power.

[General Mung Beans]

Because the environmentalists prevent the full unleashing of nuclear power as in France due to Chernobyl (which is an example of Soviet/Red incompetence not the evils of nuclear power) and Fukushima (the fact that the plant withstood such a large quake is good news).

Chernobyl and Fukushima are, however, an example of the "evils" of nuclear power - mainly the fact that heavy radioactive contamination persists for a very, very long time and makes territory unsuitable for life. Anti-nuclear crazies notwithstanding, I can understand why some people have issues with nuclear power.

Besides, the anti-Global Warming nutjobs don't give two shits about "nuclear power". The US, biggest GW contributor and pollution source in the world hasn't been active in nuclear power construction for decades.

Anti-environmentalism does not result in abundant nuclear power.

And who blocked development of nuclear power in the US?

[K. A. Pital]

And who blocked development of nuclear power in the US?

Um... the US government?

The 1979 TMI accident did not, however, initiate the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry. As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, 40 planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979. No U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI.

[Lonestar]

Um... the US government?

The 1979 TMI accident did not, however, initiate the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry. As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, 40 planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979. No U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI.

That's because no permits had been requested. Cheap dead dinosaurs=no desire on the part of the private sector to pay the nuclear surcharge.

[K. A. Pital]

That's because no permits had been requested. Cheap dead dinosaurs=no desire on the part of the private sector to pay the nuclear surcharge.

*nods* In any case, this has nothing to do with environmentalists and everything to do with the "cheap dead dinosaurs" lobby. Which is about as anti-environmental as Union Carbide.

[SpaceMarine93]

And what, exactly, is wrong with nuclear power, other than the fact that they go melt down no on their own accord, but because of human error, negligence or natural disaster?

[Akhlut]

And what, exactly, is wrong with nuclear power, other than the fact that they go melt down no on their own accord, but because of human error, negligence or natural disaster?

Because the first two are scarily common, while the latter is unpredictable.

Now, I'm pro-nuclear, but only when properly regulated. Hell, I'd prefer state-owned nuclear operations that are as transparent as possible (i.e. the public can tell that safety regulations are being followed, but not so much as to make a terrorist attack likely to succeed). However, until we can make such guarantees about safety, it is not unreasonable for most people to be wary of nuclear power.

[Eframepilot]

And what, exactly, is wrong with nuclear power, other than the fact that they go melt down no on their own accord, but because of human error, negligence or natural disaster?

It's also incredibly expensive. That's the main reason that no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S.

[Covenant]

There's also the "Not in my Backyard" principle, which has been a big issue in American politics. Building a new nuke is often touchy, as is even operating one, and you need access to a community to staff and supply the beast with the necessary employees and water and so forth, which can entail a bit of work on the infrastructure and bringing in a new caste of worker bees that may not have been part of a local culture. I wouldn't think that is an issue but I do know people get ornery in general when that happens.

It's partially the "I don't want to grow a third arm" thing but it's also just that these are extremely large projects and most places don't want them going up, and will put up a stink if you try to put ANYTHING near them. That goes for clean and aesthetically pleasing Giant Windmills too, so even if it was a power plant that ate nightmares and replaced it pure happiness, people may not want it so close to their house.

Because of this and most notably cost we've continually let old reactors lapse. You can jam a coal or oil plant into an industrial sector of a big city, like we have in Chicago, but you can't just wedge a nuke into south-side and expect nobody to throw a fit.

If people were less spooked and the government was given broader power to improve infrastructure, something that recent politics has made almost impossible to do at all, the feds could seize land to build nukes on the way we did with roads and dams and all that great stuff that we can no longer build due to Republicans.

[Lonestar]

And what, exactly, is wrong with nuclear power, other than the fact that they go melt down no on their own accord, but because of human error, negligence or natural disaster?

As I said, it's expensive. In the US power generation is mostly provided by the private sector with outliers like the TVA here and here. The private sector is usually unwilling to build nuclear power plants because of the large surcharge and extra time that goes into building nuclear power plants.

Even expanding existing plants is incredibly time consuming. Dominion Power here in VA wants to add a (modern) reactor to the North Anna generating station, but is facing problems in the form of greenies from out of state arriving and heckling at town meetings and trespassing on plant property. Actual NIMBY isn't a problem here, Lake Anna is an artificial lake built for the plant and it is where Northern Virginians descend upon during good weather. So when you have to worry about not just the locals but orgs that bus in protestors it causes the private sector to shy away from expanding their nuclear assets.

[Singular Intellect]

Because of this and most notably cost we've continually let old reactors lapse. You can jam a coal or oil plant into an industrial sector of a big city, like we have in Chicago, but you can't just wedge a nuke into south-side and expect nobody to throw a fit.

If people were less spooked and the government was given broader power to improve infrastructure, something that recent politics has made almost impossible to do at all, the feds could seize land to build nukes on the way we did with roads and dams and all that great stuff that we can no longer build due to Republicans.

Sounds like we need an clean energy solution that can be easily integrated into existing infrastructure anywhere, like rooftops, faces of buildings, open and empty fields, open desert areas not many people would fret over, etc, etc.

[SpaceMarine93]

Oh please, at one point an American politician drank a glass of nuclear reactor coolant on the Senate floor just to show that its safe. He's still here, so why worry? And China is building them like crazy right before Fukushima, and they are economically still behind the US.

[Lonestar]

So?


In the US power is (mostly) provided by private companies. Private companies don't want to pay the nuclear surcharge when there are dead dinosaurs to burn, and they don't want to deal with the fact that it takes years and years just to get to the ground breaking stage of adding to existing nuclear power plants. A new coal or gas plant is a rubberstamp in comparision, and cheap(er).

[Straha]

I am frankly tired of how so many of us enlightened people, who are aware of Global Warming, who are concerned about how the forces of ignorance and greed are stopping us from doing anything about it, who are willing to talk about it, just SIT there and complain and Complain AND COMPLAIN and not actually doing anything about it.

You care? You really really care? Honest to goodness give a shit about Global Warming?

I'll give you one simple thing you can do to right now to fight climate change: Go vegetarian. If you really care, go Vegan.




According to studies that have been done going vegetarian can reduce your carbon footprint by 50-70%. Going Vegan can reduce it by 80-85%. (A bunch of random sources that I pulled with a quick google search.Not sure if the figure is in here butgo look it up yourself if you want it.) Going vegetarian is actually pretty easy, and being vegan isn't difficult at all if you put a little bit of effort into it. It's the biggest single change you can pull off on your own, and it makes a difference not only in climate change but in the lives of animals as well (which is the reason I did it).

If you want the answer to your question: It's because people are too happy to keep living the life that climate change provides. There's no incentive to change, so they don't. It's much easier to bitch to your friends about how stupid congress is than it is to give up hamburgers and sausage that you've eaten your entire life.

[Akhlut]

That's a bit easier said than done for the poor in developed nations. For instance, my family (me, my wife, and my 3 year old son) need roughly 6,000 calories a day and can only spend maybe an average of close to $15/day for food. While I have absolutely nothing against vegetables, a pound of meat gets me nearly 900 calories, versus some 50-200 for vegetables (depending on vegetable). So, even though fresh vegetables are between $1-2/lbs and meat can be upwards of $3/lbs, I'm still more able to feed my family on meat than on vegetables. It's a shitty part of the equation for a lot of people in the US (and, assumably, other parts of the developed world) that it's much easier to feed a person on meat than on vegetables if they are poor.


Modern industrial agriculture is an enormous pain in the ass environmentally anyway, though. In the US, the way grains are grown in the Midwest contributes significantly to the poor environmental quality of the Gulf of Mexico, while farming practices in the Southwest are bleeding aquifers dry. Agriculture needs an immense overhaul in general to counteract all the problems that is going to eventually require action from the government as well as from consumers.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I asked a simple question back on the first page, but I don't suspose I'll get an answer.

[Eulogy]

If you want the answer to your question: It's because people are too happy to keep living the life that climate change provides. There's no incentive to change, so they don't. It's much easier to bitch to your friends about how stupid congress is than it is to give up hamburgers and sausage that you've eaten your entire life.

Growing your own veggies and rearing your own chickens reduce the carbon footprint, too. You can even have a row of soil hanging off your windowsill or on your balcony, if you live in an apartment.

But the best thing people can do is not waste so much stuff. True, there are things that have to be tossed out, but simply eating your leftovers, composting and recycling more, finding new ways to make useful things out of junk, and being more self-reliant can all help reduce your dependence on outside resources. You just need some imagination.

[Straha]

That's a bit easier said than done for the poor in developed nations. For instance, my family (me, my wife, and my 3 year old son) need roughly 6,000 calories a day and can only spend maybe an average of close to $15/day for food. While I have absolutely nothing against vegetables, a pound of meat gets me nearly 900 calories, versus some 50-200 for vegetables (depending on vegetable). So, even though fresh vegetables are between $1-2/lbs and meat can be upwards of $3/lbs, I'm still more able to feed my family on meat than on vegetables. It's a shitty part of the equation for a lot of people in the US (and, assumably, other parts of the developed world) that it's much easier to feed a person on meat than on vegetables if they are poor.

You need to look for variety and do research ahead of time but you can, usually, get more calories for less money as a vegetarian. Lentils, rice, beans, most fruits (I'm personally fond of bananas), pasta, and a bunch of other food are dirt cheap, easy to make, and calorie rich. I live on a very modest income and after I switched I was surprised to find myself with more money. This doesn't hold with going Vegan, but you can easily cut all meat out of your diet and save money.

Modern industrial agriculture is an enormous pain in the ass environmentally anyway, though. In the US, the way grains are grown in the Midwest contributes significantly to the poor environmental quality of the Gulf of Mexico, while farming practices in the Southwest are bleeding aquifers dry. Agriculture needs an immense overhaul in general to counteract all the problems that is going to eventually require action from the government as well as from consumers.

Which is another reason to go vegetarian. Beef requires five pounds of grain for every pound of meat produced. For chicken and beef it's roughly 2-3 pounds of grain per pound of meat. By going vegetarian you not only help stop global warming, you also stop environmental degradation by using a lot less land for your food. It's pretty cool.

Growing your own veggies and rearing your own chickens reduce the carbon footprint, too.

As long as you're engaging in animal agriculture you're creating unnecessary carbon emissions. The problem isn't just the transport and feed, it's the animals themselves. They fart alot and their waste products are one of the leading (I think it's actually the number one) producers of greenhouse gases. In short, if you care about the environment go veg!

[Straha]

I asked a simple question back on the first page, but I don't suspose I'll get an answer.

Eh, voting is cool and all and we should all probably vote, but it's also one of the least efficient ways to bring about change, especially the systemic change the OP is looking for. If were going to change the world we have to start using our agency to flip the levers of capitalism to make it work for us, and engage in some direct action. Even if it's only making sure the money you spend on food/paper/clothes/whatever goes to a better final destination you can do a lot more that way than voting. Voting is good, but if you care about change you've got to start practicing it at an 'atomic' level and not just at an overtly political level.

[aerius]

If you want the answer to your question: It's because people are too happy to keep living the life that climate change provides. There's no incentive to change, so they don't. It's much easier to bitch to your friends about how stupid congress is than it is to give up hamburgers and sausage that you've eaten your entire life.

Pretty much. When electricity costs 6-10¢ per kwh, I can run electric space heater vs. air conditioner duels and barely notice it on my hydro bill. On the other hand it's cheap because it's mostly nuclear & hydroelectric power where I live so if I use a ton of electricity I'm actually supporting green energy.

[Eulogy]

As long as you're engaging in animal agriculture you're creating unnecessary carbon emissions. The problem isn't just the transport and feed, it's the animals themselves. They fart alot and their waste products are one of the leading (I think it's actually the number one) producers of greenhouse gases. In short, if you care about the environment go veg!

Define the term "unnecessary carbon emissions".

[Lusankya]

You care? You really really care? Honest to goodness give a shit about Global Warming?

I'll give you one simple thing you can do to right now to fight climate change: Go vegetarian. If you really care, go Vegan.

This is good advice in general. Especially if you branch out into non-western food, it's quite easy to get a good variety of vegetarian foods which makes you not even miss the meat. (I don't know about American food, but the Australian staple of "meat and 3 veg" doesn't actually lend itself well to cutting out the "meat" part. If one wants to go veg in Australia, one pretty much has to branch out into "non-traditional" cuisine.) One can even make a decent impact on the environment by merely cutting down on the amount of meat in one's diet, rather than cutting it out entirely.

I do, however, think that advice for significant dietary changes should be accompanied with the caveat of "discuss the matter with your doctor/nutritionist", since different people do have different dietary requirements that cannot necessarily be met easily when coupled with dietary restrictions. I have one friend who suffers from anaemia, and she often require iron supplements on top of large quantities of meat and oranges in order to stay healthy. Needless to say, vegetarianism is Not For Her.

[Straha]

As long as you're engaging in animal agriculture you're creating unnecessary carbon emissions. The problem isn't just the transport and feed, it's the animals themselves. They fart alot and their waste products are one of the leading (I think it's actually the number one) producers of greenhouse gases. In short, if you care about the environment go veg!

Define the term "unnecessary carbon emissions".

Carbon emissions that are created via processes not necessay for our upkeep/survival. In other words: you don't need that chicken to live a happy, healthy, productive, "western" life. Ergo the emissions it produces are unnecessary (as opposed to, say, what you emit whilst driving. )

Lusy-chan: Being vegetarian certainly isn't for everyone, but I think most people could go vegetarian relatively easily, and (on top of that) most people who say they can't go vegetarian could if they wanted to put in the effort, but simply don't want to put in the extra time/energy to care about their diet.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I asked a simple question back on the first page, but I don't suspose I'll get an answer.

Eh, voting is cool and all and we should all probably vote, but it's also one of the least efficient ways to bring about change, especially the systemic change the OP is looking for. If were going to change the world we have to start using our agency to flip the levers of capitalism to make it work for us, and engage in some direct action. Even if it's only making sure the money you spend on food/paper/clothes/whatever goes to a better final destination you can do a lot more that way than voting. Voting is good, but if you care about change you've got to start practicing it at an 'atomic' level and not just at an overtly political level.

I know, I just get irritated when I'm told "We need to do X...BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!" by someone who can't even be bothered to get off their ass to vote. If someone won't vote, how much else are they likely to be doing?

[Lusankya]

Lusy-chan: Being vegetarian certainly isn't for everyone, but I think most people could go vegetarian relatively easily, and (on top of that) most people who say they can't go vegetarian could if they wanted to put in the effort, but simply don't want to put in the extra time/energy to care about their diet.

Oh, definitely. Doubly so for if you just cut down the number of times you eat meat to once or twice a week. If you do that, then in all likelihood you'd actually be improving your health. Plenty of westerners eat a big slab of meat every day, and that's not actually that good for you anyway.

Personally, I'm not vegetarian, but I do eat meat rarely. Aside from the pork that comes in dumplings, the only meat I eat is a small plate of liver or duck's blood every one to two weeks. That seems to give me enough iron that I don't get the mystery bruises that I get if I don't eat meat for a long enough time, and I very much doubt that such a small amount of meat increases my carbon footprint significantly over a pure vegetarian. It's definitely better than what your average Australian would eat.