Amazon Fires - Manufactured Crisis by the Left

[Ibelsd]

Again, this makes no sense. Politics is about public policy and who is in office.

Right now, public policy is not only can you build nuclear power plants, the government will subsidize the effort. That is the politics of nuclear power right now. That said, greens don't like nuclear power, they favor other power technologies. Simple as that. It's not clear what you want them to do, go out and build nuclear power plants for you? Why would they do that if they favor other technologies? Why build nuclear when you could build solar or wind or what have you instead?



Eh, I think that's not really the deal.

Green environmentalists think global warming is imperiling the earth (or more specifically its living inhabitants). (Not all democrats are greens.) Some people think its a hoax, mostly these people are very ignorant. The Republicans seem to have the lions share of them, but it is not really a Republican position as such. Republicans are very pro-business no matter what sort of business it is, so they tend to favor existing fossil fuel companies in their efforts to limit regulation on those industries. Republicans also tend to like nuclear power. Greens don't like nuclear power because it has its own form of rather catastrophic pollution.

Democrats want to regulate business more, Republicans tend to want to de-regulate business. That's where the real political line is. The GOP honestly doesn't care what kind of business it is so long as it makes money. The Dems feel that the government has a responsibility to keep people from doing destructive things like polluting.



Nuclear power is not illegal, it is encouraged and subsidized by the US government. What concession are you looking for exactly?

First, nuclear energy was intended as an example. I am not making an argument over specific energy policy. What I can say is that while 34 reactors have been shut down, only 2 are scheduled to be built. I understand not all Dems are 'Greens'. I understand not all Reps are open to doing anything at all. That's my point here. It is politics. It is about working with the other side to move incrementally towards your ultimate goal. That is how U.S. politics works. So, even the 'Greens' in the Dem party should be willing to do whatever they can to reduce carbon emissions if they truly believe in the impending catastrophe they have been claiming. Yet, I do not see them making much of an effort to reach a consensus by offering compromises. And, if the situation is as dire as claimed, you'd think the 'Greens' would be willing to concede a little more to get anything done. That they refuse to put out realistic ideas, to me, indicates that maybe they don't believe their own hype.

To my understanding, nuclear plants are not subsidized. They may receive government loans such as approved by Obama back in 2010. The legislature could act to do more to replace them more quickly, but I believe most Dems have actually spoken against the use of nuclear power. That is what is odd. Our planet is supposedly on the verge of destruction and the Dems (most of them) refuse to negotiate with Republicans to build more. Certainly this is something most Republicans would be willing to discuss. Instead Dems are focused entirely on wind, solar, and trillion dollar plans which no one believes the Republicans will endorse. Again, do we refuse non-union firefighters to save our burning home just because we support the union?

Let's also look at the fantasy legislation Dems have put out, the Green New Deal. Let's be clear, this is the plan Presidential aspirants on the Dem side have been touting and the author claims it was never intended to be an environmental plan. It was intended to change the entire economy plan. So, again, if Dems want to save the planet, does it make sense to support legislation which has absolutely no chance at bipartisan support? How serious are they when they claim the earth is dying and then offer a solution they absolutely know is untenable for the other party? It doesn't make any sense. It is like trying to convince your mother-in-law to move to a safer neighborhood and handing her a brochure for a lovely hut on a small island knowing she absolutely wants to remain near her friends and family. How serious were you really in wanting her to move somewhere safer? The small island may be the safest place on the planet, but who cares? There is no chance she'll agree to move there. It'd be much more reasonable to have her look at a place in Palm Springs. Not as safe as the small island, but far safer than the crumbling condo in the middle of crack town she live in now. The Dems are offering Americans the hut on the small island and it is just bizarre.

[Sigfried]

First, nuclear energy was intended as an example. I am not making an argument over specific energy policy.

Indeed, your argument lacks much except to try and throw shade on the conviction of Environmentalists. It's like arguing that the NRA is not serious about the second amendment because they don't support universal background checks. That would be a nice compromise right? They say it's horrible that democrats will take our guns, so why don't we give them a compromise to forestall that? It's rubbish. Its a position antithetical to their proposed agenda. Nuclear power is antithetical to the green movement for the most part. It may be better than coal, but that doesn't make it one of their goals.

To my understanding, nuclear plants are not subsidized.

Your understanding is wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecle.../#ccd5db87b2ca
"Legislatures in New York and Illinois have approved as much as $10 billion in special subsidies through zero-emission credit programs to keep older nuclear plants operational. Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Connecticut are considering similar special subsidies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy
"In the United States, the federal government has paid US$145 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($85 billion) and fossil fuels ($60 billion) from 1950 to 2016. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies received a total of US $34 billion."

"A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[48] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $158 billion in federal subsidies, or 16% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 8% of the total and less than half of the total applied to renewables, while hydro power received $105 billion in federal subsidies, 10% of the total."

Let's also look at the fantasy legislation Dems have put out, the Green New Deal. Let's be clear, this is the plan Presidential aspirants on the Dem side have been touting and the author claims it was never intended to be an environmental plan.

So why do you bring it up in a discussion about energy policy?

It was intended to change the entire economic plan. So, again, if Dems want to save the planet, does it make sense to support legislation which has absolutely no chance at bipartisan support?

Because its the kind of policy they campaigned under and promised they would champion. Why did the GOP try to kill Obamacare with legislation 54 times knowing it wouldn't work...(ok after the first couple)? Because its what they promised they would try to do.

The green new deal hasn't even been up for a vote anywhere. It's more like a sort of party platform for the hard left in the party. They are 100% serious about climate change but they don't think Nuclear power is a reasonable solution to that problem. That's the whole of it.

It's like Catholics who are against abortion but also against contraception. These positions work a little against one another but it doesn't mean they aren't serious about them.

[evensaul]

Alarmists extrapolate and sensationalize science,

And they often fabricate numbers and invent supposed facts. Such is the case with fires in the Amazon.

The rest of your post just seems a long off-topic (the Amazon fires, a supposed crisis) lecture, of which I'm not particularly interested. For example, if you want to debate CO2 levels and global warming, find an old thread or start a new one. Your choice. Or perhaps we can just agree on this statement of yours: "I think the level of alarmism is overblown among many on the left. That's true. But, I also think the level of apathy is too high among many on the right." I'm good with that.

[Sigfried]

Or perhaps we can just agree on this statement of yours: "I think the level of alarmism is overblown among many on the left. That's true. But, I also think the level of apathy is too high among many on the right." I'm good with that.

A compromise statement I can accept. Especially since it's rare to bring an argument to such a neat and tidy end.