77 comments on A Convenient Solution to An Inconvenient Truth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
77 comments on A Convenient Solution to An Inconvenient Truth
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
As far as 'The Real World', we all live in it, complete with the many constructions that let our minds organize and understand it in one way or another. But to get too certain that your solution is the "Real" one lacks humility.
I don't see either Nuclear or Coal as safe enough, clean enough or reliable enough to advocate, and I am working to get around both of them, as soon as I can.
Still, they are part of the current picture, like oil and gas, and I will be using their energies to move us in a direction away from them.
I voted for Nader. That was in no way a vote for Bush, even if it gets painted that way. To tar the greens is the most easy and unproductive way of opposing coal.
I can do nothing but quote Eskribage:
"you can't oppose both nuclear and coal and still claim to live in anything but a dream world"
The biggest delusion by so-called enviromentalists is that by opposing both energy sources they will make the big business and the big money go to renewables. In the real world, the money goes to where it is mostly secure and will achieve greatest ROI. Now that it does not go to nuclear because the opposition is too high (which makes it insecure) of course it will go to coal, because it offers the greatest ROI from alternatives. In the real world coal opposition is limited to the enviromental groups. There is no such thing as "coal paranoya" as opposed to the radiation paranoia which is very successfully induced and kept by the media and the enviromental groups. In the real world the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc. did the coal plant 10 miles from their house release this year. So please, give me a break. Do not overestimate your power and try to learn what politics is all about.
Citing one of your peers in looniness does not an argument make.
the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc.
Of course, THIS is what has to be tackled, because BOTH coal and nuclear are lethal.