American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Good thing we didn't have a million people die to Covid and who knows how many more would have had we not done something. I'll also note to Trumps credit he did a non zero amount to help (the absolute minimum, but still credit where credit it due)

Can you actually site a law or executive order?

Biden hardly is banning fossil fuels. We probably should. Its not fascism; I don't think you know what that word means. I know Republicans don't believe in science, but government trying to not burn the world down seems in the interest of the country (and cheaper in the long run too).

[Boro]

For someone who wants to ban fossil fuels, you are still using the internet, which costs electricity, both for your end-user hardware and the backbone network, 60% of which is generated via fossil fuels in the US of A.

(Edit, I know this looks like one of those stupid "gotcha"-s, but you should really think about what else fossil fuels are used for, and that's not even taking into account for future increasing demands if you decide to electrify transport via more train lines, electric vehicles, and so on)

If you look at China, you see that rather than making short term pandering to the uneducated crowds enamored with this green fad by proposing bans, they are pushing enormous amount of work building nuclear power: 21 NPPs under construction, including a small modular reactor, but they also have a molten salt type reactor online, which doesn't even require water, can't melt down, and produces much less waste (in fact it can recycle reprocessed waste) than normal reactors.

That's how you push for a "greener" energy, not nonsensical bans that don't even consider the availability of replacement capacity. Just look at european energy prices and inflation once the russian pipelines were either closed, or blown up.

[Mjmd]

I believe you've correctly identified the logical fallacy tu quoque. Yes I don't live as a hermit in the woods (although I do live in a small woods). But neither do I blindly ignore climate science and I walk and bike when I can among other measures.

China is also still opening tons of coal plants; more than the rest of the world combined......... The US meanwhile is retiring more than building (as far as I can tell we are building 0 and the few that are in planning stages face long odds).

Yes the US should be opening more nuclear, but we definitely have the problem of "Not in my backyard' problem. The waste sites also have the same problem. China has the advantage of saying "This is going in your backyard and if you complain about it you won't be seen again".

I'll note a very attractive side benefit to moving over to green energy generation is not being beholden to global energy prices. I'm aware more oil subsidies would also fix this problem, but we are having trouble clawing back the ones we have (not that either party seems to be super serious about doing so, but at least the Democrats aren't in favor of MORE).

[GeneralKilCavalry]

I believe you've correctly identified the logical fallacy tu quoque. Yes I don't live as a hermit in the woods (although I do live in a small woods). But neither do I blindly ignore climate science and I walk and bike when I can among other measures.

China is also still opening tons of coal plants; more than the rest of the world combined......... The US meanwhile is retiring more than building (as far as I can tell we are building 0 and the few that are in planning stages face long odds).

Yes the US should be opening more nuclear, but we definitely have the problem of "Not in my backyard' problem. The waste sites also have the same problem. China has the advantage of saying "This is going in your backyard and if you complain about it you won't be seen again".

I'll note a very attractive side benefit to moving over to green energy generation is not being beholden to global energy prices. I'm aware more oil subsidies would also fix this problem, but we are having trouble clawing back the ones we have (not that either party seems to be super serious about doing so, but at least the Democrats aren't in favor of MORE).

Now compare the energy usage w.r.t population & goods production. If the US was producing as much as China, we'd still have all our coal plants up and running. Per capita, we are incredibly inefficient (suburban lifestyle, gas guzzling jeeps, etc.)

Nuclear is cope -- necessary, but really not a solution to the climate problem as it stands, simply because it takes too long to build *safe* plants and train the engineers for them. The alternative is to build like Japan or the USSR and pray you don't have a dumb accident or a predictable natural disaster (until you inevitably do). France is probably the isolated case of a successful nuclear program in all respects.

Only way to resolve the climate crisis before things get desperate is to change consumption patterns alongside massive investment into green energy. Better solutions were available 25 years ago.

[darrelljs]

How the hell does Luxembourg generate more CO2 per capita than the US? Anyway, a combination of green energy generation and common sense moderation of usage is indeed the key. As Mjmd points out, unfortunately in the US (unlike China) people have a say on whether a nuclear plant goes up in their backyard. All the reductions we’ve seen recently are due to a shift from coal to natural gas because of the shale gas boom. Short term gain, long term pain.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

We're agreeing - the Republicans are bad at picking electable candidates.

Could be the kind of people Trump has brought in…



Darrell

[Boro]

I believe you've correctly identified the logical fallacy tu quoque. Yes I don't live as a hermit in the woods (although I do live in a small woods). But neither do I blindly ignore climate science and I walk and bike when I can among other measures.

China is also still opening tons of coal plants; more than the rest of the world combined......... The US meanwhile is retiring more than building (as far as I can tell we are building 0 and the few that are in planning stages face long odds).

Yes the US should be opening more nuclear, but we definitely have the problem of "Not in my backyard' problem. The waste sites also have the same problem. China has the advantage of saying "This is going in your backyard and if you complain about it you won't be seen again".

I'll note a very attractive side benefit to moving over to green energy generation is not being beholden to global energy prices. I'm aware more oil subsidies would also fix this problem, but we are having trouble clawing back the ones we have (not that either party seems to be super serious about doing so, but at least the Democrats aren't in favor of MORE).

Now compare the energy usage w.r.t population & goods production. If the US was producing as much as China, we'd still have all our coal plants up and running. Per capita, we are incredibly inefficient (suburban lifestyle, gas guzzling jeeps, etc.)

Nuclear is cope -- necessary, but really not a solution to the climate problem as it stands, simply because it takes too long to build *safe* plants and train the engineers for them. The alternative is to build like Japan or the USSR and pray you don't have a dumb accident or a predictable natural disaster (until you inevitably do). France is probably the isolated case of a successful nuclear program in all respects.

Only way to resolve the climate crisis before things get desperate is to change consumption patterns alongside massive investment into green energy. Better solutions were available 25 years ago.

Okay, some points, first, apologies for the overdone fallacy meme. Had a momentary brainrot there.

Regarding the backyard issue, there was a gag order on a family iirc who can't speak about shale or fracking in the USA, and the whole Dakota access pipeline was still built although at least ONE group managed to pull of the "put in the weaker guy's backyard not mine" card off successfully. Truly a shining example the world should learn from.

On the other hand, there seems to be at least some successful protests in china.
One against a coal power plant in 2011, delayed production.
https://web.archive.org/web/201401310457...865af5.361
https://www.gem.wiki/Haimen_power_station

Another against an uranium processing facility. Aside from the mandatory bullshit expected from an american publication, the fact is that public protest resulted in a project cancelation.
https://web.archive.org/web/201506120742...t/2518221/

Now on the issue of china still building coal power, can you blame them for not wanting to live like rats? Like GeneralKilCavalry mentioned Their per-capita emission is still way below the "first world level", and all the manufacturing was moved there from many western countries, and manufacturing costs energy. And is anything solved globally by moving emissions from one country to the other when we have a single atmosphere?

This leads (circles back) to nuclear power, which is at least a cope for now. Here in Hungary we have 50% of our electricity made from nuclear, and have been intending to more than double that production, with the Paks 2 power plant expansion planned since late 2010. I know as it was showed on the tour my class had during secondary school. The plan was officially announced in 2013, and predictably it was opposed by most of Western Europe, and it's paid lackeys in Hungary (mainly because western nuclear corporations weren't getting the juicy contracts). The process dragged on so long that not a single shovel was plunged into the dirt until last year.

as for the consumption changes... Are you guys ready for rolling blackouts? giving up hot showers and baths, giving up air conditioning? Heating? Fridges? How are the environmentniks expecting to run their EVs when there won't be enough electricity around? And who decides who gives up how much? The government where nominees in elections are selected mainly by the wealthy who own the media AND the Big Donor Money? Or going wild west style where the stronger dog gives up less and makes the weaker dog give up more?

Okay this was exaggerated scaremongering (at least I hope) on my part, taking inspiration from my eastern and western neighbours. But I spent a lot of thinking about it, and without massively marshalled resources (Again, who decides which resources get marshalled and who gives how much, who does what, and so on?), overhauling of transport infrastructure (rails everywhere), building public transport from scratch, it's unlikely anything will get done in North America.

[Mjmd]

Its not like China isn't building lots of solar and other renewables, but their incentive structure if memory serves skews towards the cheaper up front coal plants. I don't want them live like rats but I do want them to do better, just like I want the US to do better.

BTW the first 2 articles mention police violence against the protesters and your third article talks about various types of punishment dealt out to environmental protestors. Those were your articles......

Your argument in general seems to think its either fossil fuels or nuclear and you are just ignoring every other renewable. Its going to require work; most things do. There are US states mostly Democrat led but even some Republican states that are moving pretty well towards renewables, but we need to do better. Its not either stone age or burn the planet.

[superdeath]

https://www.iaenvironment.org/our-work/c...ind-energy

Iowa ranks 2nd in the country for wind energy production, but 1st in what % of their state is run by wind. 57%!

[Krill]

As of Friday I should be the owner of 16, 400w, solar panels, which should be cost neutral in 6-7 years with the only fossil fuels used being mains gas, with a long term plan for 12 more panels, heat pump and hot water tank (cost benefit analysis TBD). According to PVGIS I should generate over 6000kwh per year and use less than 3500kwh.

And the reason this is possible is because of smart(er) tariffs making it possible to sell excess electricity back to a national grid to offset other costs and some battery packs (included in the first cost/benefit analysis). I will not be self sufficient in winter months but should still generate around 60% per month even in the doldrums. I doubt European energy costs spike again given that these figures are in a bad part of hte world for solar panels.

https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/

I imagine that if the US had a functioning electricity market you would destroy what the UK could do, between wind, solar, hydro and grid storage.