Toggle sidebar

Green New Deal

952d97570493d4b1e41c01c31be7ca32.gif
 
CharminTide said:
McConnell is talking about the resolution I linked. Which, for the record, is the only real version.

But hey, if you'd rather attack specters than discuss the actual text, you can do that on your own.
Click to expand...
If you’d like to pretend she never released a document you now call a specter then feel free. I will concede since I don’t know that she could have changed it after she rolled it out and before it was submitted as a resolution. Although the wording is changed I will point out that current wording would still promise the same thing as before.
 
Bamaro said:
We must transition ASAP to a green economy or be left behind.
Click to expand...

I think the growing pains associated with the transition will always be too much for a majority of politicians to support it. The end point might be nice but all the time in between will be painful to somebody's pockets and some other people's jobs. The house is elected every 2 years. They will not vote on legislation that is slow before it benefits people when they have reelection coming up in less than 24 months.
 
twofbyc said:
But let’s visit the topics one at a time:
I have no problem with the first; move should have been started long ago in earnest. Other countries in Europe, and China, are far ahead of us in this regard. Nuclear energy is not “clean”; other than the fact that nuclear waste disposal is problematic and fraught with potential dangers, Fukushima shows us that these facilities themselves can be at risk due to natural disasters.
I could go on and on, about how even the Dutch are developing “paddle” systems to generate power from wave action on the shoreline, etc, but suffice it to say I have no issue with this at all.
Click to expand...

When the topic of clean energy comes up most point to solar power as the answer to all problems. However, solar power isn’t as “clean” as it’s made out to be either. As this article points out https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.f...-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/amp/ solar panels are made with lead and cadmium, both of which are toxic and must be properly dispose of. As more panels are made and thrown away, this problem exponentially compounds.

While nuclear obviously isn’t free of risk, it provides the most energy with the least amount of impact on the environment.

I would prefer that money be spent to advance science in fusion reactors, such as ITER https://www.iter.org, understanding that there is no guarantee of a return on that investment.
 
Bamaro said:
We must transition ASAP to a green economy or be left behind.
Click to expand...

By ‘we’ if you mean the federal govt then good luck. But by ‘we’ if you mean individual citizens that’s doable. I’ve stated on a couple different threads (too lazy to link specific posts) that change must begin at the individual level. In terms of thinking ‘green’.....ie installing solar panels at home, driving a plug in electric car etc. If enough individuals do that the market place will carry the country to the head of the pack or at least towards the front in terms of having a much more green economy imo. I think the best thing the govt can do is encourage such adaption of cleaner technology/green technology via tax incentives
 
If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

As a result, nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity. In fact, the climate scientist James Hansen finds nuclear plants have actually saved 1.8 million lives to date by preventing the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.What about Fukushima? According to the World Health Organization, “even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.”In other words, the second worst nuclear disaster in history will have no impact on cancer rates even in the area where the accident occurred.
Click to expand...

Solar panels produce 300 times more waste for the amount of energy created than do nuclear plants, according to simple calculations done by Mark Nelson and Jemin Desai of Environmental Progress.And, at the end of their life, solar panels are usually destined for landfills, often in poor nations, where workers and residents are at risk of exposure to the panels’ dangerously toxic heavy metals.Wind and solar generate energy for just a fraction of the year which is why, when nuclear plants are shut down, they are mostly replaced with fossil fuels, something even some anti-nuclear groups are starting to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

But, backed by fossil-renewable energy investors like Tom Steyer, and Wall Street tycoons that stand to profit from complex carbon trading schemes, environmental groups like NRDC and EDF work with Democratic politicians like Bernie Sanders to a fossil-renewables fuel mix to replace nuclear plants.Given who’s paying for those efforts, it’s not surprising that the spread of solar and wind is locking-in fossil fuels and raising electricity prices, which has made dealing with climate change harder, not easier.
Click to expand...
 
Tidewater said:
If you google French and German nuclear disasters, you will see 0 fatalities and, in the previous 30 years, a remarkable record of safety. (Not problem-free, but generally pretty safe.)
I think that if we are serious about global warming/climate change, nuclear will be indispensable in the near-term. Lots of nuclear.
Click to expand...

What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.
Let’s address another topic: how many jobs would be created transitioning to renewables versus building a few more nuclear plants?
I agree nuclear should be utilized but only to transition to renewables; it’s not the long term answer.
On another note...

https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-Soak-Pollutants.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
twofbyc said:
What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.
Let’s address another topic: how many jobs would be created transitioning to renewables versus building a few more nuclear plants?
I agree nuclear should be utilized but only to transition to renewables; it’s not the long term answer.
On another note...

https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-Soak-Pollutants.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Unlike the "Green New Deal" the wind doesn't always blow...
 
twofbyc said:
What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I remember a news story about how the current administration was sending radioactive stuff to a state out west via trains. Unfortunately, trains do occasionally wreck.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...clear-waste-train-but-nowhere-to-go/14904167/

Climate change deniers point to some preliminary stuff in a draft proposal, focus on the faults, and wash their hands of doing anything about the problem.

In my opinion, the New Green Deal is an attempt to jerk the Overton Window several notches in the correct direction. It seems to be doing just that.
 
Last edited:
Tidewater said:
If you google French and German nuclear disasters, you will see 0 fatalities and, in the previous 30 years, a remarkable record of safety. (Not problem-free, but generally pretty safe.)
I think that if we are serious about global warming/climate change, nuclear will be indispensable in the near-term. Lots of nuclear.
Click to expand...

While googling French and German safety records concerning nuclear power, it might also be a good idea to include Japan.
 
Chukker Veteran said:
While googling French and German safety records concerning nuclear power, it might also be a good idea to include Japan.
Click to expand...

I would agree. For starters don't build one I'm an area prone to earthquakes, and not in the coastal plane subject to tsunamis.
And while we are at it, I would not recommend building on the Chernobyl model either.
In the short run, if we are really concerned about climate change, the most reliable and cost effective energy with no carbon emissions is nuclear. It is not risk-free, even if everything goes right, because there is radioactive waste to deal with, but to dogmatically refuse nuclear energy a role shows a lack of seriousness about the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back