What’s the Constitution got to do with climate? Current legal cases are now addressing that question. They are using the U.S. Constitution to bring climate protection into the courthouse. These cases range from youth demanding their constitutional right to a stable climate to activists who block fossil fuel pipeline construction and justify their action as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
Dear Pacha Mama,
The trouble with the courts as pointed out, are slow as molasses. We need a streamlined way to ensure the future of Earth and all her children, not just greedy humans. Civil disobedience only goes so far. We are in a mass extinction event whether we want to realize it or let it go. If the power elite don’t give a damn it will be hard to affect change. Don’t give up though, maybe something good can happen.
I’m for the mass extinction of humanity. Once our non-beneficial, harmful, and out-of-control species is gone, evolution as Nature determines can proceed unrestrained.
You cannot have a rational discussion about how to tackle “climate change” if nuclear energy is completely off the table. This is why I cannot take progressives seriously. If they honestly cared about the climate, they would put all ideas on the table. Nuclear is probably the best of them all. Wind and solar are highly inefficient. But it doesn’t matter anyway. A free market would let the best technology win and would spur innovation. Picking a winner by government fiat is never the answer.
If you can tell me how to manage the externalities of nuclear wastes from both technical and political perspectives, I shall happily listen. Warning: I first entered the bowels of Yucca Mountain over thirty years ago and spent quite a bit of time working on various issues related to such matters.
That question is a non-sequitur. I don’t need to be the scientific expert in this field. Innovation solves this problem. If the private companies managing the nuclear plant have to bear the direct cost of any nuclear waste, then they will work to find innovation solution to prevent those costs. Your proposal is like saying to me, “hey, if you can manage to find a way to manage accidents on the roads, I shall happily listen to your proposal to allow the existence of cars.” I don’t need to be a car expert to know that automobile companies will produce products that are safe because they will bear the cost if their product fails.
And if you say that certain companies aren’t bearing those costs directly then that is the problem, not the existence of the industry itself.