282 comments on NY Times Energy Series: Nuclear
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
282 comments on NY Times Energy Series: Nuclear
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Wow - living in Germany, where the Green party in the later 1990s proposed a 10 dollar a gallon tax on gasoline, I hadn't realized that it was all a Republican plot to get an oilman elected in the U.S.
Or are we talking about the same Green party?
Because the one I know of played a major role in shutting down not only the domestic German nuclear industry, but East Germany's brown coal industry too. They have also been huge supporters of locally based agriculture, a typically Republican ruse. Let's not even begin to explore Green dedication to reducing consumption at all levels, from packaging on up, another typical Republican concern.
Actually, you get all your information about the Green Party and its politics from the American media, I would hazard to guess. Well, in that case, rest assured that it is a Republican ploy to help the Green party as a favor for the Greens helping the Republicans. Sort of like how feminists and fundamentalists are really just big buddies in the end.
And if you are standing on the opposite side of the planet day IS night. As a historical note - the Greens basically became an organized party ca. 1980 - they haven't even been around for 40 years. Of course, the Republicans and the Democrats have. Now that I think about it, maybe the Catholic Church is responsible for abortion, pacifists cause war, and people who live in America have nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of the world's fossil fuel consumption takes place in the United States.
Well, for a while there, I thought I would actually have to resist changing my worldview so as to blame environmentalists for McMansions, SUVs, and obesity. But I stopped myself - it really wasn't that hard.
And of course, the world is not in any sense running out of oil, and this peak talk is just crazy - and home prices always go up, too.
Ignoring reality is so much easier than dealing with it.
Partly bought by government money Vattenfall got as compensation for handling over a large share in the nuclear powerplant Ringhals to the utility Sydkraft now German E-on as compensation for our greens forcing a closure of the Sydkraft nuclear powerplant Barsebäck.
I dont like closing nuclear powerplants in Swedens since it is stupid due to environmental, economical and of course peak oil reasons but it gets realy disgusting when tax money used for this stupid idea ends up financing new brown coal powerplants.
I would for environmental and national selfish reasons very much enjoy a sale of these Vattenfall assets in Germany to finance new nuclear powerplants in Sweden. The official line seems to be that Vattenfall must be one of the largest players on the european market or they will otherwise be destroyed or perhaps loose the pee distance competition. My less advanced insights into such things is that well run and profitable trumphs big but I am of course poor and powerless myself and dont know what makes mega corporations successfull.
Well, I live next door to Germany (Luxembourg) and from my balcony I have a nice view of the wind turbines that grace the Saarland's skyline on the other side of the Moselle. So I am reminded every day of the aesthetically less pleasant aspects of implementation of some of the Green Party's policy proposals - but perhaps that's the price we have to pay. Thanks anyhow - rejecting the nuclear option makes the German countryside a more beautiful place, doesn't it?
Their proposal to raise gasoline taxes was certainly a saving grace, but I remember that in the 1980s they seemed to devote about 90% of their energy to demonstrating against nuclear power plants, which for them embodied evil incarnate - and they spent the remaining 10% on data-dredging-based hysterical scare-mongering about the alleged carcinogenic hazards resulting from exposure to miniscule and barely detectable quantities of chemical insecticides. Never in their literature did I come across any reference to relative risk either in connection with nuclear power or in connection with toxicological issues. Perhaps I didn't read enough.
I'm not denying their positive side.
Just saying they were pretty much a mixed bag.
Personally, I never found the few windmills on the Rhine in Karlsruhe a problem - but then, the coal power plant chimney, and the barges carrying coal into the Rhine harbor tend to be much more noticeable.
As for what the German Greens protested against - I would guess their anti-war stance took at least as much of their energy during the 1980s as any environmental concern. (The Greens are not Greenpeace.) Of course, some Greens tend to be hopelessly hysterical romantics, so I am not disagreeing with any personal observations. And living here in Baden is strange - the joke is that people here think Green, but vote Black (CDU) - this may mean that the Greens don't look or act as extreme here as in other parts of Germany, or that many Green concerns about sustainability are just considered normal.
It always interests me to see how the truly radical Greens of that time tend to get reduced to the most politically palatable level of environmentalism, which all major parties in Germany adopted, without discussing other major concerns which remain quite unacceptable to discuss it seems - such as blood for oil being morally wrong.
But then, gaining power does that to idealists. I tend to be a fan of the Greens to the extent they were true outsiders (they aren't anymore), and in the sense they seemed more capable of seeing a larger picture - again, as outsiders they didn't have to worry about insulting any other power blocs.
There are a number of transformational changes that are directly due to them. Waste management, energy conservation, transport, bioclimatic housing, solar and wind energy : these are fields where Germany leads the world.
The Greens didn't invent them, and we can imagine that they would have come anyway, sooner or later (though Germany would probably not have led the world in any of them by then); but they were, in fact, imposed by the Greens through tough political coalition-building, persuasion, compromise and (most of all!) proportional representation, which gave them political clout.
The nuclear issue is a tough one, but shouldn't serve to hide the huge and very positive overall contribution of the German greens.
We should be so lucky in France!
But they are no longer an outsider party, and one of the main reasons for their existence seems to have faded into the background of necessary police actions, or peace keeping, or whatever term works for sending soldiers to do something other than defend a nation from direct attack. The Greens had that debate, and the ones in power did what people in power normally do - exercise that power to remove opposition to what those in power feel is necessary and correct.
Sort of like how Green Rezzo Schlauch now sits on the EnBW board - even though the company is majority owned by EdF, the world's largest commercial operator of nuclear reactors (I believe - the U.S. may have more reactors, but they are owned by various companies).
I'm sure he thinks his reasons for being there having nothing to do with the check he receives, or the cover it gives EnBW to keep selling electricity generated in France using nuclear reactors. But then, he is an innocent politician, not a cynical citizen.
Come on. You claim to be concerned about peak oil, global warming, and sustainability, but you're going to oppose a key element of the solutions on the grounds of visual aesthetics?
Personally, I find them, without exception, beautiful. That may not be entirely unconnected with the fact that I actually care about these issues.
The greens in Germany are not the same as the Greens in PA, for instance, where they are entirely funded and staffed by republicans.
Hell, he got his supporters to donate 40 grand to the green party for the ballot drive. Do you really think he is doing this because he is a warm and fuzzy environmentalist?
If you vote for the green party candidate for senator in PA this Nov. you really need to have your head examined. Rick Santorum is the most vile thing that ever came out of PA and really, really needs to lose his job.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15167552.htm
The two-party system is really neat!
It's TWICE as democratic as the one-party system!
Yes, and those greens are so competent and smart!!!!!!
They could challenge Hillary from the left, or Lieberman, or Kennedy, or Kerry, and in any of these cases they would have a significant chance of winning. In addition, they'd significantly advance their cause whether they won or not, and not severely hurt their cause if they lost. Do they do so, no, they do not.
Where do they challenge? Well, lets see, there's Pennsylvania, where without their help Santorum has about a 5% chance of survival, with their help perhaps 30%. In either case, the greens have roughly a 0% chance of winning. Sure looks like that'll help the environment, if they save the nastiest of the republicans from his day of reckoning.
Where else, well, they challenged in the presidntial race, and told everyone that a Gore presidency would be the same as a Bush presidency. Does anyone actually believe that? Do they even actually believe that? Two words, willful, ignorance.
Where else, looks like a challenge against Feingold to soften him up and make absolutely sure that we don't ever get a real liberal running for president, good, good.
In all of these cases, they had massive help from republicans. The campaigns are waged with republican money and republican volunteers. It shows, the corruption seeps through. The chief justice of the pennsylvania supreme court called their 2004 ballot petition (if memory serves) "the most horrendous fraud ever perpetrated upon this court.."
Hmm, seems like they're really saving the environment. Good thing we have them around. Without them there would be no Bush, and god only knows where we'd end up. Probably with very little CO2 emissions and vastly less dependency on foreign oil. At the very least we'd be in good financial shape. Good thing we have greens around fighting for the rights of endangered wingnut republicans everywhere.
The two party system isn't perfect, but it surely does far worse with a third spoiler party hell bent on underminig their own ideals.
A primary challenge within the democratic party can work, just look at Lieberman. Basically, the twoparty system works fine without massive election fraud and willful ignorance on the part of the major players. Even with these handicapps it will work itself out eventually anyway. The US isn't the only country to elect a nasty leader, Italy (twice!), and Germany spring to mind. Neither case can really be blamed on the convenient scapegoat, the two party system.
Nice illustration of my thesis.
I have no desire to defend the US greens. In the electoral setup you have, they have little hope of being anything but a spoiler. That's because of the two-party system, which is a travesty of democracy.
Contrast the Green Parties of Germany or New Zealand, where proportional representation gives them an influence, a hugely positive one.