Why spend effort solving seemingly insignificant problems? Even in terms of envrionment... AGW is only a small concern. We should be FAR more concerned with groundwater pollution, airborne particulates, solid waste disposal (keeping that isht out of our oceans and waterways) and ground level ozone just to name a few right off my head. Your argument seems to be "roll over" and accept it more than one of merit. Just sayin'.

quote:
It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby.

There are MANY and NUMEROUS arguments in favor of nuclear. But garnering a political constituency ain't one of them. I'm glad they aren't doing that.

quote:
Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates

different issue, different time. Many supporters of GWB, no longer support GWB.

quote:
AGW denial appears to be a quid pro quo for political influence

As does belief for democarts... The higher-taxes and bigger government quid pro quo exists just as much on the democrat side. Oddly you only seem to be ascribing malice to one side.

quote:
Which is why it's difficult for me to find less cynical explanation than the Occam's Razor of capture by fossil fuel interests.

Sounds like your failure... combined with prejudice about what others believe. You're capable of better. I honestly believe that.

This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 2:12 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Iosh

Bureau of Interstellar Immigration

Member since Dec 2012

18941 posts

Posted on 9/23/14 at 4:44 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
Why spend effort solving seemingly insignificant problems? Even in terms of envrionment... AGW is only a small concern. We should be FAR more concerned with groundwater pollution, airborne particulates, solid waste disposal (keeping that isht out of our oceans and waterways) and ground level ozone just to name a few right off my head. Your argument seems to be "roll over" and accept it more than one of merit.

This is a scarlet herring. It's possible to address multiple issues at once, particularly when the solutions not only aren't exclusive, but synergistic. The main sources of tropospheric ozone and airborne particulates are combustion of fossil fuels. And if Republicans have been running on a platform of "gosh, I want to clean up the groundwater, but those darn Dems are only worried about the carbon" I must have missed it over the din of all that hydraulic wastewater injection.

And I'm not arguing for nuclear because it would make Republicans popular. I'm arguing for nuclear because it needs to be popular in order to pass. It just so happens that Republicans are the only demographic that currently supports it. Necessary, not sufficient. (The sufficient condition is that it's by far the safest per-WH energy source, and also the most efficient over the long term.)

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board