If you look to see who funds climate change advocacy I expect you'll find governments doing most of it, with various ngo's doing most of the rest. Look at the ngo's and you'll find maybe soros or gates as prominent, but I don't think there will be much concentration: the environment movement is a real popular movement, not astroturf.
Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal from the "evil rich people", even if it means ending the Western Civilization.
But the public at large, politicians, and most business interest desire the comfort of facts, so people have a tendency to want to believe things are more settled and concrete than they may actually be.
I am grateful, by contrast, that my med school professors frequently declared “ten years from now, perhaps half of what we’re teaching you today will have been proven incorrect”. While half is an exaggeration, I’ve certainly been astonished at how much has changed so dramatically in such a short time.
Of course we just have to do the best we can with what we know at any particular time. So if the climate consensus is pointing one way, by all means let’s follow the bread crumbs. But overconfidence can be a dangerous comfort.
The real question is, are these really the people you want in control?
They introduced loan securitization a few years ago, and their system does not have anywhere close to the flexibility or tolerance for dissent they are going to need to deal with the issues that is creating for them.
And human beings, in my experience, can be lazy, venal, honourable or hardworking, in both the private and the government sector. But the last time I checked, the private sector only cared about the people with money, whereas the government is required to care about everybody.
Cost a few thousand dollars, and a few hundred every few years to have them come and pump the tank.
I pay Amazon ~$10 a month for access to more reading, listening and video content than most major university libraries have access too.
No late fees either.
Of course sewage is better handled at the municipality level in dense areas, and I'm not okay with private firms having control over access to information, but Federal level governments are highly inefficient.
If one has 12-48k to pay rent this year a few hundred for a machine, about 1k for internet access then one can pay 10 a month to access a worse collection a homeless man could check out at the library.
Access to the rest of human knowledge is available for 10 to 100 a pop.
Or ~$1.50 a day. And you get the rest of the internets knowledge included.
No hours of operation, no librarians giving you dirty looks
In Germany energy taxes + VAT make up more than 50% of the price of gasoline and this has been the case for decades. If we switch to 100% electric cars then the government will lose 10% of its tax income. This is a strong motivation to avoid transportation policies that are good for the environment.
The government can tax whatever it wants, there is no reason why electric cars couldn’t generate the same tax receipts.
No the facts appear to be that you don't know how climate works.
Why are you so passionate about this issue, what's in it for you anyway?
Do you stand to make millions off of oil and gas? If not, why are you arguing for the side that wants to let the world burn?
(Ps calling her mentally ill when she is clearly not does nothing for your position)
The fact that we do not have much historical data and good verifiable models to understand how the planet climate behaves under large changes in parameters (CO2 emission, etc.) makes it even more important and urgent to act. We never know at what moment the system will cross the threshold, and damage becomes irreversible, and planet destruction accelerates.
https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/en/arbeitsgruppen/theoretische...
(Expect a stationary state to take at least 50 years to run after starting or disturbance (such as changing incoming radiation or CO2) since the ocean model is a mixed layer and takes a while to equilibrate. In the real world the ocean mixing time is ~1000 years though.)
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/1850729...
>Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994.
It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phrase "climate change." If we had listened to Republicans back when it was just "clean air" we'd be in a much better position.
But your post above very much makes it sound like the GOP is actively trying to fight climate change through nuclear power, and those darn Dems just won't let them. But since attaining power in 2016 the GOP environmental position looks to have mostly been gutting the EPA, rolling back regulations, and braying about bringing back coal ("clean air" indeed!). From here it looks like the GOP is just utterly indifferent towards climate change or the environment and extremely pro-fossil fuel; any interest in nuclear they might have doesn't appear to have much to do at all with it being a path towards clean energy.
I went out of my way to say that Republicans aren't all that concerned about CO2. So you are just reading something into my comment that isn't there. Honestly it just seems like you're unwilling or unable to see nuance. You couldn't see it in my post and you can't see it in the Republican position of simply having a different idea about how to balance strong economies and environmental concerns, both of which save human lives and improve quality of life. I mean, who do you think is digging up all that coal in Appalachia? Do you think it's a bunch of Democrats getting black lung to keep the power running? Do you really think you have anything to tell them about how dangerous it is?
But at the end of the day, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is that nuclear is the only viable solution for clean grid power and Republicans support it while Democrats don't. If you want to get into the weeds about why they support it or how they're wrong about other issues or even details on this issue, then have at it. I think it's a waste of time personally.
Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007
Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b...
Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow...
Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country.
This isn't a Burger King.
Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007
Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b...
Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow...
The remaining problems are local/social ones. We need the left to tell the Sierra club and their ilk not to sue every potential nuclear plant into oblivion. Hollywood largely owns the culture, we need them to make pro-nuclear media to help alleviate NIMBYism. The environment is not the GOP's issue. They GOP supports nuclear but without it they will happily keep burning coal. Nobody made the claim that nuclear power was a top priority for Republicans, the claim is that Republicans largely support nuclear and are going to keep burning coal while politely waiting for the Democrats to come around to the only real viable clean grid energy solution.
The billions in loan guarantees in your first link was additional funding for a nuclear reactor approved by the Government in 2012, during a Democratic administration.
The NEICA was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats in the Senate. [2] It passed both houses in a bi-partisan manner.
The "Republican bill NELA" has 11 Republican co-sponsors and 9 Democratic co-sponsors. [3]
This all seems pretty bi-partisan to me, not sure where you got the idea that Republicans are "politely waiting for Democrats to come around." If that were true, they wouldn't be co-sponsoring and voting for the legislation you mentioned.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/10-states-run-nuclea...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/97/...
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/903...
>Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994.
Democrats are now starting to come around. But Republicans have been in favor of nuclear since before you even heard of climate change.
It’s ok to admit that something isn’t R or D. Republicans support oil and coal most, Dems support wind and solar most, both support nuclear. The Gallup analysis itself talks about the cost of other energy sources playing a part in the perception. As solar, natural gas and oil have become cheaper, expensive nuclear plants have become less popular. Your link about the Georgia plant says it is years behind schedule and costs have doubled, maybe Democrats see that as fiscally irresponsible and that’s why they don’t support it as much. Either way, this simple poll can’t answer those questions and actual legislation tells its own story.
Also, legislation isn't the only part of the story, so are lawsuits. Do you think environmentalist groups like the Sierra club who have a history of burying efforts to build plants in lawsuits are more closely associated with Democrats or Republicans?
Trying to boil everything down to a yes/no or left/right issue leads to this type of back and forth. Issues have many sides and multiple nuances, it’s ok to admit that.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
>Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power.
Adds billions in loan guarantees to build nuclear plants https://www.apnews.com/38189fb0550e401da6b339ad9870a007
Signs NEICA https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-b...
Republican bill NELA https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/murkow...
Here's my real nuanced position. Republican's ability to make this happen is somewhat limited. They can fund research, they can work on environmental regulations that stifle nuclear power, they can subsidize the industry with loan guarantees, and they can work with other countries to promote nuclear power globally. They're doing all that. The remaining hurdles are largely social ones, and the liberals largely own the culture. We need Hollywood to make pro-nuclear media. We need movie stars to support it in their dumb speeches at awards ceremonies. This will help stave off some of the NIMBYism. We need the left to tell the Sierra Club and their ilk to stuff it and not sue every attempt to build a nuclear power plant into oblivion... those groups aren't going to listen to Republicans.
It's totally true that the environment is not as high of a priority for Republicans as it is for Democrats. The GOP supports nuclear, but they're not going make it their top priority. As long as the Democrats continue to block it, as long as liberal groups make it tacitly impossible to even break ground on a nuclear plant, the GOP will just keep on happily burning coal. It's fine to think whatever you want about Republicans. I probably won't even disagree with you on most of your opinions. But this is a super easy major win for the environment that is being left on the table because the Democrats aren't willing to play ball.
[0] 'The Prize', Yergin
Smart energy companies that produce less CO2 are definitely funding the other side. The Natural Gas folks, for instance, generate less CO2 than the coal companies (per BTU) and so, naturally, they're fueling the protest fires. Nuclear emits hardly any CO2 and so they're very anti-CO2. And certainly the wind and solar companies have everything to gain by sticking it to the fossil fuelers.
Here's one link, perhaps biased, but still informative. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28...