Home | About | Donate

To Change Everything, It’s Going To Take Everything We’ve Got

I’m fairly certain you are implying that I am a conservative. That is just tooooooo funny. I am so far left of conservatives (and the liberals I referred to in my original post) that they couldn’t see me with binoculars. Furthermore, anyone who reads very many articles and the subsequent posts will/should already know this fact.

As far as being a troll, in your opinion. I’ll wear that label as badge of honor as it relates to calling this article tripe.

If you want to actually want to learn about inspiring and bringing about change, I recommend viewing the video included in the article from a guy who actually walked-the-walk for 40 years. The chasm between experience and ‘intellectual’ theory is the difference between success and failure.

“Nuclear power is of no help in reducing global warming.”

I would say the examples of France, Sweden, and Ontario show that is not necessarily the case. But even if it could be shown that adding more of the kind of nuclear power we have now would not be helpful, that wouldn’t even begin to establish that eliminating nuclear power which is already in operation and replacing it with wind would do anything at all to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germany appears to be an example of a country which accomplished a large transition to renewables, but in terms of actually lowering their greenhouse gas footprint the gains were minimal because most of the new renewable generation went towards replacing nuclear power. And if the actual carbon footprint of their large biofuels program and their externalized carbon footprint were fairly accounted, even their modest greenhouse gas gains might be wiped out.

“Too slow”

Does not apply to nuclear power already in existence.

“too costly”

Ditto.

“too carbon intensive in the supply chain and waste streams,”

Existing nuclear power already has the initial build, the decommissioning, and most of the waste stream carbon costs already locked in. In total lifetime carbon, present tech nuclear is already nearly as good as most renewables, so there’s no way wind, with all the steel and concrete production that entails, comes out ahead competing against just the carbon of the nuclear supply stream–especially right now while the leading form of backup for wind power is fossil fuels.

“too dangerous”

Vastly safer than fossil fuels, so this point is nullified unless it can first be shown that shutting down existing nuclear and replacing it with wind will somehow displace more fossil fuels than leaving the existing nuclear plants running for now.

“and far better ways of making electricity are available.”

Much worse ways are also available, so the same burden applies. Not only that, but with respect to the issue of public perception I raised, this case has to be made compelling enough to be convincing to people outside your ideological subgroup. That clearly hasn’t happened yet, and until it has, my original point stands.

We have to overturn the Citizens United ruling and end campaign contributions, both, once and for all. We have to get the big, ugly money of the already-wealthy and corporations out of our election system and government. If we don’t do that, nothing will change for the better, for the people. These 2 need to be minimum goals, for sure.

On FB: Get the Big, Ugly Money Out of Our Election System and Government: