Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on May 31, 2011, 05:40:04 pm
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/getting-nervous-about-nuclear-power/article2040659/
German Chancellor Angela Merkel jolted the nuclear industry on the weekend with her announcement that Europe’s industrial powerhouse will close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022, pulling the plug on a technology that until recently supplied Germany with 23 per cent of its power.
Talk about knee-jerk reactions. I think we have a few Germans around here; any of you care to elaborate on this?
-
Yeah, it's a sensationalist and uniformed policy to a sensationalist and uninformed knee-jerk reaction by the public, in regards to the Japanese incident which was pretty damn exceptional.
-
I somehow doubt this will actually work.
-
I somehow doubt this will actually work.
Agreed, but by that stage, it will be someone else's problem. Always the downside of Democracy.
Edit: The ironic part is that most of the wind-farmable energy sources are in the North and most of the Industry in the south, and the environmentalists are already complaining about the possibility of an 'Energy Autobahn' running across the country in a series of Pylons. Cake and Eat-It mentality throughout.
-
Yeah, it's a sensationalist and uniformed policy to a sensationalist and uninformed knee-jerk reaction by the public, in regards to the Japanese incident which was pretty damn exceptional.
Regarding how the Japanese gubbermint bungled the reporting and censorship of the issue, I'm not surprised at the backlash in public opinion. Nuclear power is only as good as the people running it - idiots can be guaranteed to ruin the most well thought out or safely designed systems. I'd be more confident in Nuclear energy if it was an effeciently run and properly inspected machine, but politics will always remain.
-
This discussion about pulling the plug from Nuclear reactors goes on for years now.
The only time were it ever mattered, was before elections, were the politicians promised to pull the plug and fight for environment friendly and cheap alternative energy sources.
It never happened, the runtime of NRs was always increased for a couple of years, after the election was over.
And considering how many politicians are part of the executive board on the companys that run the NRs, it was highly doubtful that it would ever happen.
The terrible incident in Japan, seemes have changed a few things.
I'll wont believe it until it really happens ( in 2022), as there's always the chance to move the plug pulling further back ( like it happened in the last years).
It's a downright stupid move, from an economical point of view.
The price increase for the population will be significant and then, all the people who wanted the NRs offline will start *****ing about the prices for alternative energy. Jerks, all of them.
-
It's a downright stupid move, from an economical point of view.
The price increase for the population will be significant and then, all the people who wanted the NRs offline will start *****ing about the prices for alternative energy. Jerks, all of them.
I'll be taken for surprise when I see an environmentalist (i know, generalisation going here) actually propose a realistic plan built on renewable energy, but they only seem good for few things, and meeting realistic goals is not one of them.
-
Everyone of them has a plan or an idea on how to make it work.
The problem is, that those plans are either not affordable, ineffective, ridiculous or all three options together.
And the fact that the Green party is gaining, and in fact rules one of the most important federal states of Germany, which is considered to be of the three engines of the economy, doesn't help at all.
They always had stuppid, idiotic, unaffordable and moronic plans, but now they are in the position to actually try to make them real.
God help us.
There's the hope though, that they will struggle implementing them quickly ( there's resitance from the economy), and if people realize whom they elected, that they'll stay only one term in power.
-
i just don't see how it is possible that any environmentalists still think nuclear power is bad. they'd pretty much have to be willfully misinforming themselves. i took me all of a half hour reading in my high school's library 7 years ago to go from knowing NOTHING about nuclear power to realizing it's the best power source currently available, and eventually launching my career.
-
What's happening on the nuclear "battery" front, are those going to be effected?
-
nuclear batteries aren't for general power generation. they produce power for a long-ass time, but not a lot of it. useful for things like powering space probes/sattelites and pacemakers (not sure if they've actually been used in those or not).
-
I wonder a little bit, since I'M german, about the reactions the shutdown of our npps causes. Germany has a giant anti-nuclear lobby which grew heavily over the years. The oldest nuclear reactor of germany is located just 30 kilometers away from my hometown. So I'm quite happy about the shutdown and really hope that both reactors in my neighbourhood will be shut down and not just "Biblis A". Many of these reactors aren't equipped with failsafe systems to protect it from all possible technical breakdowns. But of course germans also share another mentality compared to other nations regarding nuclear power plants. So it's not like this technology is being refused just because we don't like the way it's used. If you would have watched the cabinet of our Bundestag you could have seen what they've done within the last 10 years to make the germans 'feel' good. Some non-germans would say that this is absolute ridiculous.
-
I can't read, so ignore this.
-
I wonder a little bit, since I'M german, about the reactions the shutdown of our npps causes. Germany has a giant anti-nuclear lobby which grew heavily over the years. The oldest nuclear reactor of germany is located just 30 kilometers away from my hometown. So I'm quite happy about the shutdown and really hope that both reactors in my neighbourhood will be shut down and not just "Biblis A". Many of these reactors aren't equipped with failsafe systems to protect it from all possible technical breakdowns. But of course germans also share another mentality compared to other nations regarding nuclear power plants. So it's not like this technology is being refused just because we don't like the way it's used. If you would have watched the cabinet of our Bundestag you could have seen what they've done within the last 10 years to make the germans 'feel' good. Some non-germans would say that this is absolute ridiculous.
Sounds more like a refit and rebuild would be better in that case then, bring the reactors up to date, or build new ones as you phase out the old. The problem with a simple phaseout is that it will almost certainly mean that Germany will have to import power from outside in order to maintain that massive industrial base that you have.
The thing is, I know that the current German government is in trouble over the current European monetary problems and the bailouts paid to other countries, I can't help thinking this is an untenable idea designed purely to win votes, but even renewable power sources won't be enough to keep an industrial giant like Germany maintain its current rate of growth, they simply won't be able to keep up.
-
I wonder a little bit, since I'M german, about the reactions the shutdown of our npps causes. Germany has a giant anti-nuclear lobby which grew heavily over the years. The oldest nuclear reactor of germany is located just 30 kilometers away from my hometown. So I'm quite happy about the shutdown and really hope that both reactors in my neighbourhood will be shut down and not just "Biblis A". Many of these reactors aren't equipped with failsafe systems to protect it from all possible technical breakdowns. But of course germans also share another mentality compared to other nations regarding nuclear power plants. So it's not like this technology is being refused just because we don't like the way it's used. If you would have watched the cabinet of our Bundestag you could have seen what they've done within the last 10 years to make the germans 'feel' good. Some non-germans would say that this is absolute ridiculous.
They aren't equipped with that stuff because they were built in the 70's. They should be replaced with modern reactors.
Agreed, but by that stage, it will be someone else's problem. Always the downside of Democracy.
Edit: The ironic part is that most of the wind-farmable energy sources are in the North and most of the Industry in the south, and the environmentalists are already complaining about the possibility of an 'Energy Autobahn' running across the country in a series of Pylons. Cake and Eat-It mentality throughout.
Not to mention the billions of Euros worth of subsidies that it would take to actually build enough wind farms to come anywhere near powering a decent percentage of the industry, and that's on top of already absurdly high subsidies on the electricity coming out of it. You guys in Germany are staring down, and seriously considering jumping into, an economic black hole.
-
a (very) quick google search of reactor plants in germany seems to indicate your currently operating reactors are almost all newer than ours. all i could find in 5 minutes was capacities and BWR/PWR type, not specific models. regardless, i can assure you they are perfectly safe and not at all outdated. sure there are newer designs, but the old ones still work perfectly fine. nuclear tech really isn't all that complicated; it doesn't take a bunch of fancy gizmos to run one. our reactor fleet here has only recently begun to replace the analog gauges and ticker tape with digital panels. i used to live within 5 miles of a 2-unit plant, it's a hell of a lot safer than living near a fossil plant. or even a hydro dam for that matter.
if the goal of this move is truly to get rolling on renewables, why not phase out fossil instead? from either an enviornmental or economical standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to shut down the nuclear plants. i've got to think there's something else going on. unless germany as a whole really is that opposed to nuclear power for whatever reason, in which case i guess that's your choice. i'll just sit back and shake my head sadly.
-
if the goal of this move is truly to get rolling on renewables, why not phase out fossil instead? from either an enviornmental or economical standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to shut down the nuclear plants. i've got to think there's something else going on. unless germany as a whole really is that opposed to nuclear power for whatever reason, in which case i guess that's your choice. i'll just sit back and shake my head sadly.
Environmentalism isn't really about saving the environment, it's an ideology where the rules of reality don't apply and sensationalism (like the anti-nuke nonsense) always wins.
-
Is this the "Integration has failed" lady? If so then I'm not particularly surprised.
-
I'll just be blunt.
Enjoy sucking Russia's dick for natural gas Germany. Your renewable policy will likely not go as well as you think.
-
Yep, pretty much.
We're going to have to import more electricity from France (who are much saner about this nuclear power thing) and we'll have to build more coal-powered power stations.
To say this is insane is the understatement of the year. But then, the Greens (at least, the radical greens) have never been noted for their common sense. Add to that the current Chancellor's penchant for using public hysteria to gain points (Yes, a nuke plant blew up in Japan. After being hit by several natural disasters that exceeded design tolerances by several 100%. And a cleanup effort that was hampered by mismanagement.), and you get moronic people making moronic decisions.
Personally, I expect these decisions to be reversed before long, maybe not in the next legislative period, but the one after that. Realpolitik is far too strong a force in german politics to be ignored for so long.
-
This is just another evidence that ms Merkel is one of the worst politicians to have ever been in office in one of the most powerful nations of the world. From her incompetence in dealing with the soverreign debts of european nations, to her populistic shenanigans trying to get the racist vote for her ass, and now this sheer demonstration of silliness makes me vomit. A shot in her forehead would even be a waste of a bullet. Use a knife instead.
-
is germany subject to much in terms of natural disasters? seems the japanese plant was built in a bad spot. likely built to survive earthquakes, and survive tsunamis, but not both in a relatively close timeframe. always thought it was silly to place nuke plants near the ocean anyway. seems it would be safer to build the plants inland near lakes if cooling water is required or several meters underground, perhaps taping into aquifers, the water table or artificial reservoirs for emergency cooling. here in the us we have lots of uninhabitable desert to build huge nuke farms (essentially huge installations of multiple nuclear reactors) to supply power to large chunks of the us. more effort needs to be put into proper plant placement.
that said i think this is a huge mistake. if what those delusional environmental (emphasis on mental) types is even remotely true, then fossil fuel technology is by far more dangerous than nuclear. so why kill nuclear? wind and solar are too land hungry, you will likely disturb wildlife over huge areas. where a nuke plant sits in a very small and hopefully isolated area, with overly sufficient containment systems in place. other options like hydroelectric and geothermal require very specific geological conditions and should be used over nuclear where applicable, but not at the expense of efficiency or safety. people who want to close nuke plants should be nuked.
-
Makes me wonder if I'm really going to go out vote on June 13th (or 12th? We have two calls for a referendum now, and I don't remember which one is related to nuclear plants) due to the relevance and apparent superiority of anti-nuclear activists and the importance given to them by the media. The funny thing is that activists are citing the German episode as a proof that nuclear energy won't help Italy at all. "If they're dropping nuclear energy and have their good reasons to do so, why would we start using it now?" - that's the leitmotiv. Claims of German activists seem very credible to the Italian public. Many French activists had their say, too.
The Fukushima accident surely played an important role, but still nothing compared to widespread ignorance. I for one would like to see nuclear fusion plants in the future, and I'm kind afraid to see progress on that aspect of nuclear energy being relented, stopped or whatever simply because of the "nuclear" part.
-
I doubt this will hold for long once people pause to actually think of the ramifications of this. But then people rarely do pause to think of what they're doing
-
The environ-mental's deepest desire is not for having germany (or any other country) adopt fossil fuels, solar, wind or anything really. What they are striving is first to stagnate all the economy, and then bring it down, in a process that is called "Powerdown", so that we can live again in harmony with nature herself. So we can fellate her or smth, instead of raping her on her ass.
We have to fight against this anti-humanistic disease. Yeah, the planet is important, but if the only possible vision of the future is some kind of a medieval eternal dark age, then **** it. Might as well go down with a bang than with a whimper.
-
is germany subject to much in terms of natural disasters?
Nope. There are no geological faultlines, and while there are some flood areas, they have been mapped and known for ages. The worst thing that could happen are man-made disasters (as in, passenger jets crashing into the reactors), and even those are mostly accounted for. Not that that has ever happened, or is likely to.
that said i think this is a huge mistake. if what those delusional environmental (emphasis on mental) types is even remotely true, then fossil fuel technology is by far more dangerous than nuclear. so why kill nuclear? wind and solar are too land hungry, you will likely disturb wildlife over huge areas. where a nuke plant sits in a very small and hopefully isolated area, with overly sufficient containment systems in place. other options like hydroelectric and geothermal require very specific geological conditions and should be used over nuclear where applicable, but not at the expense of efficiency or safety. people who want to close nuke plants should be nuked.
Common sense is far too uncommon.
The environ-mental's deepest desire is not for having germany (or any other country) adopt fossil fuels, solar, wind or anything really. What they are striving is first to stagnate all the economy, and then bring it down, in a process that is called "Powerdown", so that we can live again in harmony with nature herself. So we can fellate her or smth, instead of raping her on her ass.
We have to fight against this anti-humanistic disease. Yeah, the planet is important, but if the only possible vision of the future is some kind of a medieval eternal dark age, then **** it. Might as well go down with a bang than with a whimper.
I am not exactly sure which greens you are talking about. This sort of deep green lunacy (while possibly part of the german green's memeset) is nowhere near the forefront of the current discussion.
So, please lay off the FUD.
-
It's part of the "memeset", sure. I'm not exagerating too. They won't tell this out front to the major audience, but they will blatantly tell you that the problem is "capitalism", that the problem is human population, this idea that we should "forever grow", etc. They even spread this new idea about how measuring the GDP of nations is "outdated", that we should instead measure the "happiness meter".
So, yeah, you won't hear them tell you in campaigns or PR stunts that they believe in these shenanigans. So that's why you have to listen to them in other venues. And there do they tell you everything you need to know about them...
-
I'm sorry, but when was the last time you talked to members of the German green party? You see, historically, the lunatic wing of the Green party has always taken a back seat as soon as they come into power, because the so-called "Realo"-wing is much better suited to the task of managing a country (One of the best, most respected politicians in recent years, Joschka Fischer, was one of those).
So, once more, please leave the FUD at home.
-
i dont like how environmentalism dumps all its money into gaining political power instead of into developing environmentally friendly technology. it seems less like, "lets create and use environmentally friendly technology" and more like "lets force everyone to use a technology, which is in its infancy, un-proven, and not as effective as what were using now, and which has as of yet unforeseen consequences". i have nothing against green tech, but when someone passes a law that says i have to use this technology and not that technology, then i get suspicious that something else is going on.
-
The worst thing that could happen are man-made disasters (as in, passenger jets crashing into the reactors), and even those are mostly accounted for.
I know the very few NR's in the Netherlands are built to withstand just that.
-
E, it's quite something to be said to "leave the FUD at home", when I'm trying to exactly spread some light over the green's own FUD about reality and humanity. I think this background is important to understand. Fundamentally, humanism is in opposition to environmentalism, which it doesn't mean it should be completely abandoned, it means we should not be ****ing naive at it. I endorse "both" viewpoints, but am aware of the inconsistency of having those two viewpoints at the same time.
The same I cannot say about most greens who really believe in a green fantasy that I can't distinguish from a medieval dark age.
-
Except for one, tiny, little, totally insignificant factoid. Namely, that the "Deep Green" wing of the german Green Party, uhh, left the party over a decade ago.
The Greens around here are a mainstream party; while they still retain their green message, they are not THAT bat**** insane.
So. Since you cannot understand indirect messages, here's a direct one: Unless you have references for Deep Green activity in Germany being behind this, shut up about it. Yes, we know the green movement has a lunatic fringe. Just like the capitalist, socialist, or any religious movement you care to name. Now stop spreading FUD about any green policy being part of some greater "Humans must die!!!!!!" conspiracy.
-
I have for a long time and still feel a little annoyed when the idea of environmentalism is equated with radicals. Environmentalism is not a radical ideology... on the base level it's just about being aware and using common sense in your every day activities to leave as little footprint as possible and to look for ways to improve over time.
I do consider myself an environmentalist. I still drive a car when I have to. I still use plastic bags when I have to. But if I don't have to and there is a better/cheaper way to do it then I do it. Recently the city that I live in stipulated that we can only put out one bag of garbage a week. We have two blue boxes, a green bin and a composter. Some weeks we have no garbage to put out at all and it's been that way for years...
There are always extremists but I thing it bears reminding that environmentalism shouldn't be considered in the same breath as some really loony people.
The German nuclear issue I've been reading about and it's really interesting to me. In some ways nuclear is the ideal green power at the present point in time. Aside from the radioactive waste which can be re-used for a while at least it's a fairly green technology. Coal I've been reading is one of the worst ways of generating power AND it puts more radioactivity into the air than nuclear does (except if you have a melt down and loose containment). I feel like this whole situation is knee jerk based on the crisis in Japan and a mostly emotional decision rather than one driven by environmental and practical concerns.
I think you have a few extremists yelling at the top of their lungs and this time everyone is listening because of the very real crisis in Japan. If Germany does go nuclear free then the question has to be... what does it go to and how much of an environmental footprint does going to something else mean? Energy use is going to increase pretty much everywhere unless we can come up with some vastly more efficient way to use electricity...
-
Well, there's two ways to solve the problems you get from shutting down nuclear power plants in your country.
1. Import electricity produced by nuclear powerplants somewhere else - maybe all those old rust buckets still working on full tilt in Russia despite being incredibly more risky than well-maintained western reactors or well-designed modern reactors, after all even if they melt down it won't have direct effect on your country. Except for the temporary reduction in available energy of course.
2. Increase consumption of hydrocarbons for energy production - maybe import some natural gas from Russia, or coal perhaps. Enjoy your particle emissions and increased carbon footprint. Although it's still better than buying all the industrial products from China where they probably use coal without any particle filtration.
3. Get fusion reactors working
...three solutions.
4. Reduce energy consumption meaningfully (not really an option unless you're willing to reduce industrial production, the economical competitiveness and by extension the standard of living in comparison to other countries whose industrial facilities are getting more energy.
...four solutions.
5. Outsource your industry into China or some other country with cheap energy from coal burners as well as cheap, unmonitored and exploited workers. Buy the things made there by loaning money from China. :nervous:
...five solutions, and almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
-
(http://flagspot.net/images/f/fic-cobe.gif)
-
There's also:
Biofuels, although they currently compete with food production.
Solar Energy, although not very doable for germany, because it doesn't really have all that much sun.
Biomass (That is, burning trees and replanting them), although the slow implementation of that solution will take too long, and the rapid implementation will piss off enviromentalists.
Building a Hydrodam in several rivers that currently flow trough Germany (if that hasn't been done already). Will probably be ridiciously expensive, and might piss off farmers. Will, however, make the dutch very happy because less water from the rivers means that there can be less designated emergency flood zones.
There's also wind power, but that pisses off a lot of people, and is as of now not so very effective.
There's also switching back to coal. This is what the dutch goverment is doing, the short sighted retards...
-
Except for one, tiny, little, totally insignificant factoid. Namely, that the "Deep Green" wing of the german Green Party, uhh, left the party over a decade ago.
The Greens around here are a mainstream party; while they still retain their green message, they are not THAT bat**** insane.
How do you know?
So. Since you cannot understand indirect messages, here's a direct one: Unless you have references for Deep Green activity in Germany being behind this, shut up about it. Yes, we know the green movement has a lunatic fringe. Just like the capitalist, socialist, or any religious movement you care to name. Now stop spreading FUD about any green policy being part of some greater "Humans must die!!!!!!" conspiracy.
Do you really deny the obvious? That the greenpeaces of this world and the manifs and all the luddites' voice didn't have any single atom to do with Germany's crazy policy? You say that the loony "greens" inside Germany politics are "out", so who was the crazy that persuaded Merkel to do such an incredibly luddite policy?
The alternative is sheer mindless incompetence and arbitrariness inside the gov, just to catch votes. Honestly, I really hope it is the former, not the latter, for at least the former is predictable and fightable. The latter is just idiocracy at work. Something that disturbs me even more.
-
I have for a long time and still feel a little annoyed when the idea of environmentalism is equated with radicals. Environmentalism is not a radical ideology... on the base level it's just about being aware and using common sense in your every day activities to leave as little footprint as possible and to look for ways to improve over time.
I do consider myself an environmentalist. I still drive a car when I have to. I still use plastic bags when I have to. But if I don't have to and there is a better/cheaper way to do it then I do it. Recently the city that I live in stipulated that we can only put out one bag of garbage a week. We have two blue boxes, a green bin and a composter. Some weeks we have no garbage to put out at all and it's been that way for years...
Here's the problem: Your kind of "environmentalism" is just capitalism with a little wink to the environment. It's not "really" environmentalism, because in mathematical terms, it doesn't solve all the alledged issues we have to solve in our planet. At all.
You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with. Of course you can see where this ideology goes to, and apart from the obviosities, we can also bring the Club of Rome and insert them into this ideology, based on a faulty science that has been long abandoned by Ecology itself.
Of course, not all "environmentalists" think like this (and especially the "root based" movements aren't like this at all, for obvious class reasons), but there exists a really deep elitistic groupthink inside these movements, and any heresy (like Bjorn Lomborg's for example) is treated in the most harsh way possible.
There are always extremists but I thing it bears reminding that environmentalism shouldn't be considered in the same breath as some really loony people.
Environmentalism is a "neat" idea that was long ago hijacked by a crazy detestable elite.
The German nuclear issue I've been reading about and it's really interesting to me. In some ways nuclear is the ideal green power at the present point in time. Aside from the radioactive waste which can be re-used for a while at least it's a fairly green technology. Coal I've been reading is one of the worst ways of generating power AND it puts more radioactivity into the air than nuclear does (except if you have a melt down and loose containment). I feel like this whole situation is knee jerk based on the crisis in Japan and a mostly emotional decision rather than one driven by environmental and practical concerns.
Now the only question we have to ask is, if "Environmentalism" is such a good idea in which their "extremes" are on the fringe and not really mainstream, then why the hell are we seeing such bad policies being done by governments after such immense pressure from "not loony" environmentalists?
This is not an easy question to make, but I'm afraid the answer is pretty easy: the environmentalists are almost *all* of them lunatic, and decided to simply walk away from the scientific thought, evidence and reason.
I think you have a few extremists yelling at the top of their lungs and this time everyone is listening because of the very real crisis in Japan. If Germany does go nuclear free then the question has to be... what does it go to and how much of an environmental footprint does going to something else mean? Energy use is going to increase pretty much everywhere unless we can come up with some vastly more efficient way to use electricity...
Exactly. So it makes no sense, at all.
-
Except for one, tiny, little, totally insignificant factoid. Namely, that the "Deep Green" wing of the german Green Party, uhh, left the party over a decade ago.
The Greens around here are a mainstream party; while they still retain their green message, they are not THAT bat**** insane.
How do you know?
By, you know, things like being german, and following german politics closely. And other things like having been at the party congress. And knowing several members of the green party. You know. Direct, living experience with the people you seem to think are crazy "Kill all humans!" people in disguise.
So. Since you cannot understand indirect messages, here's a direct one: Unless you have references for Deep Green activity in Germany being behind this, shut up about it. Yes, we know the green movement has a lunatic fringe. Just like the capitalist, socialist, or any religious movement you care to name. Now stop spreading FUD about any green policy being part of some greater "Humans must die!!!!!!" conspiracy.
Do you really deny the obvious? That the greenpeaces of this world and the manifs and all the luddites' voice didn't have any single atom to do with Germany's crazy policy? You say that the loony "greens" inside Germany politics are "out", so who was the crazy that persuaded Merkel to do such an incredibly luddite policy?
It's called the "Bild Zeitung", the most consistently horrible spreader of FUD for miles around (Also, the most-red newspaper in Germany). It's a tabloid produced by the (notably conservative) Springer Verlag.
In addition, note that railing against atomic energy is one of the ways a politician can gain easy public support in Germany, without ever having to actually follow through on anything. The crazy, as you would put it, is a combination of Chancellor Merkel being rather unpopular, there being several elections coming up this year and the next and Bild being overly dramatic about the dangers of nuclear plants in general following Fukushima.
In other words, business as usual for a democratic government.
The alternative is sheer mindless incompetence and arbitrariness inside the gov, just to catch votes. Honestly, I really hope it is the former, not the latter, for at least the former is predictable and fightable. The latter is just idiocracy at work. Something that disturbs me even more.
It's called a "democracy".
-
By, you know, things like being german, and following german politics closely. And other things like having been at the party congress. And knowing several members of the green party. You know. Direct, living experience with the people you seem to think are crazy "Kill all humans!" people in disguise.
The fact that people are nice and friendly chaps does not inform us of the base of their ideologies. But since you claim to know them, do you happen to know their political vision? What are the dreams of these people? How do they see Germany 2050, say?
-
Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.
Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.
-
Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.
Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.
So the only reason they aren't lunatics is because they are hipocritical politicians?
"Oh yeah, I have this ridiculous surrealistic vision of the future, but I don't really mean it 'coz deep down we all know it's bollocks, so I'll just place my visions far out in the future in the prospect that you'll realise that I'm not being serious at all if you are worried that I'm a lunatic, WINK WINK, and if by any chance you are an environmentalist that ridiculously believes that this is what should be done, then I'm obviously your guy, WIN WIN"
-
Ummm.
You do know how politicians work, don't you? While I do suspect that they actually do want to bring about all this green stuff, the reality is that goals that lie that far ahead in the future rarely, if ever, pan out.
Also note that, as things stand at the moment, they are very definitely one of the smaller partys at the federal level; they are nowhere near the popularity necessary to be more than a junior partner for a government coalition.
And on top of that, whenever they are part of a coalition, they will always settle for more realistic, achievable goals. Realpolitik wins every single time.
-
Of course I know how "politicians" work. I was just saying that if the "defense" of a criticism is that "they don't really mean it" is a rather poor one.
Also, check out this post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/06/germanys-burned-bridge.html
And this curious graph seems to be out of synch with your suggestion that the green party isn't that important:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hW21lyhDU-o/Teehj-ntCNI/AAAAAAAAA-c/adcDafw1lkI/s1600/german.vote.jpg)
-
Yes, I know those graphs exist.
However, I would rather wait for the elections in Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in September before pronouncing any trends for the next federal-level elections coming up in 2013.
-
You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with.
I have never, ever heard of the political ideology or philosophy of environmentalism having been derived in British Imperialism. I'd love to see a historical source on this...
...notwithstanding the fact that environmentalism isn't a single ideology, either.
-
Are you talking about the Shakespearean concept of the natural order or some **** maybe?
Anyway I think Batutta's much self-promoted RDI/election theory is going to be proven wrong in Germany. The country has had good growth over the last few years but now the electorate wants the Greens to jump in and **** it up. Qualifications to the theory seem to be in order.
-
You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with.
I have never, ever heard of the political ideology or philosophy of environmentalism having been derived in British Imperialism. I'd love to see a historical source on this...
...notwithstanding the fact that environmentalism isn't a single ideology, either.
The history is always more complex than simple stories, but I did not lie. Environmentalism's roots have a turning point in the twenties, with botanist Arthur Tansley's idea that nature worked like an interlinked inter-dependent system that he coined as "ecossystem" that had a natural "desire" to self-regulate towards a well defined equilibrium. Afterwards, Field Marshal Smuts, master of the empire's South Africa, was also a philosopher who took Tansley's idea and developed it into Holism, a philosophy that spoke about how parts of the system formed "wholes" which were to be in their place in order to form a greater "whole", a system that was in itself a reflecting picture of the empire itself. Everything and everyone should stick to their own place at the order of things in nature, so to not to provoke "disturbances in the force", so to speak. Tansley hated it, but many others loved it.
So you are right in saying that there is more than one ideology. However, I am mostly concerned about this one, which is not only completely obsolete in scientific knowledge about nature, but it is permeating (polluting!) the whole ecological debate throughout the world.
-
Ah. It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then. Big difference from what you said earlier.
Environmentalism is a diverse ideology. You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.
-
Ah. It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then. Big difference from what you said earlier.
Environmentalism is a diverse ideology. You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.
Now where did I here this before....
hmmmm, sometime recently if I recall, damn if it isn't on the tip of my tongue. In fact I think it involved all the same parties if I am not mistaken...
-
Ah. It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then. Big difference from what you said earlier.
Environmentalism is a diverse ideology. You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.
Now where did I here this before....
hmmmm, sometime recently if I recall, damn if it isn't on the tip of my tongue. In fact I think it involved all the same parties if I am not mistaken...
Are we sensing a pattern here? :P
-
Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/constant-electricity-ending.jpg)
-
Wat. :wtf: They must really not want to use nuclear if they're willing to have sporadic electricity...
-
Ah. It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then. Big difference from what you said earlier.
Marshall Smuts was not a mere "individual". He was one of the most important persons in the empire.
Also, I said it originated in "empirialism", which it did. Smuts was not an "individual" that "happened" to have a philosophy. His philosophy was imperialistic itself, and his ecology a perfect mirror image and a natural justification for the British empire.
I can't see any difference from what I said earlier, so I don't have a clue of what the hell you are talking about.
Environmentalism is a diverse ideology. You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.
The notion that human condition is a direct rendering of natural conditions is a key aspect and core to the environmental movement. This is what bases the ridiculous notions that the deaths in the floods in Pakistan, the tsunamis in asia, Katrina, etc., are a direct consequence of we daring to "touch" sacred Gaia, instead of figuring out the much more obvious link between the incompetence at defending ourselves against environmental hazards and the number of deaths. They are just unable to make this link, because it is anathema to their ideologies. This idea that human progress should be for us to disconnect ourselves from nature ever more is something that is completely at odds with most environmental ideologies.
It's also the most correct and proven idea, btw.
-
Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/constant-electricity-ending.jpg)
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!
Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.
Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.
So the only reason they aren't lunatics is because they are hipocritical politicians?
"Oh yeah, I have this ridiculous surrealistic vision of the future, but I don't really mean it 'coz deep down we all know it's bollocks, so I'll just place my visions far out in the future in the prospect that you'll realise that I'm not being serious at all if you are worried that I'm a lunatic, WINK WINK, and if by any chance you are an environmentalist that ridiculously believes that this is what should be done, then I'm obviously your guy, WIN WIN"
a politician has little power to make sure plans put fourth during a term will continue to go forward after their term is completed. like obama's healthcare plan whos implementation sits conveniently out of the scope of his first term. i doubt its an indication that the politician doesnt actually want the thing they propose to actually be done. no they want it and then want to be absolved of all responsibility in the event that the plan backfires or ends up wasting taxpayer money. they can always blame the successive politician. or worse than that scenario, have the following politician reverse what you did, so that any money spent on it is wasted. sometimes i think modern democracy needs some kind of long term planning body, with longer than usual terms, responsible for very long term planning with terms that fit accordingly.
-
Luis, there is a huge difference in meaning of the terms Imperalism and words with the empir- root in the English language. I get the impression you're intending to use the former. After having a quick perusal of the history of Jan Smuts and holism, I can see where you're drawing the link between the two, although it would be better said that holism was developed in a way that was compatible with Imperalist views. So fair enough, I've learned something there.
BUT...
As for the views you're attributing to environmentalism, not all people who consider themselves environmentalists share those views. Terms evolve, collective ideas diverge. Again, you're referring to a narrow (and fairly radical) segment of modern environmentalism. I don't think it's for you to tell people if they can consider themselves environmentalists or not. Holism may be part and parcel of some environmentalist views, but just because someone doesn't agree with holism wouldn't disqualify them as an environmentalist. IceFire is a good example of this.
-
Fair enough Ryan, I was probably making a straw man. But you didn't respond to my last two paragraphs. Wouldn't you consider them to be at least plausible?
-
Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/constant-electricity-ending.jpg)
He's taking a concern and trying to turn it into stated fact to be honest. The clue is later on in the article, where he talks about the Government taking their power away, in more ways than one. The UK are already moving towards building some new Nuclear reactors in the UK, and whilst we should never take things like Power or Water lightly, scaremongers like this guy don't help.
-
Fair enough Ryan, I was probably making a straw man. But you didn't respond to my last two paragraphs. Wouldn't you consider them to be at least plausible?
My second paragraph was in response to the second half of your post. Not denying that those views exist - they just aren't a part of all environmentalism.
-
He's taking a concern and trying to turn it into stated fact to be honest. The clue is later on in the article, where he talks about the Government taking their power away, in more ways than one. The UK are already moving towards building some new Nuclear reactors in the UK, and whilst we should never take things like Power or Water lightly, scaremongers like this guy don't help.
The concern seems to me that the slow rollout of nuclear reactors and an obscene focus on "renewables" combined with rising demand will mean politically engineered (by environmentalists, intentional or not) power shortages in the future. This concern is very real especially with the fear mongering against nuclear and wishful thinking about renewables.
-
There has been concerns raised before about possible 'brown-outs' at peak times, it's simply the wording of his speech that tries to make it seem more of a likelihood than it is. Whilst our Greens don't have any definitive impact on Government directly, it's true that any UK Parliament would have to at least give the appearance of being 'Eco-Friendly'. However, when the chips are down, then reality will have to bite for the consumer.
We are already running power cables through the Channel Tunnel to import from France in the near future, and whilst work is slow on the Reactors, the possibilty of annoyed voters wanting to know where the power is will be enough to buck up the incumbents. The usual British method is to drag our feet till we are looming over the catastrophe curve and then spend lots of money...
-
We are already running power cables through the Channel Tunnel to import from France in the near future, and whilst work is slow on the Reactors, the possibilty of annoyed voters wanting to know where the power is will be enough to buck up the incumbents. The usual British method is to drag our feet till we are looming over the catastrophe curve and then spend lots of money...
Lots of money is being spent, hundreds of millions of pounds worth, on renewables, that's the point. It isn't being spent well.
-
Name a Government that does spend money well ;)
They're trying to walk a tightrope between the Environmentmentalists and Industrials, but Industrials will win out in the end because they are loaded.
-
There has been concerns raised before about possible 'brown-outs' at peak times, it's simply the wording of his speech that tries to make it seem more of a likelihood than it is. Whilst our Greens don't have any definitive impact on Government directly, it's true that any UK Parliament would have to at least give the appearance of being 'Eco-Friendly'. However, when the chips are down, then reality will have to bite for the consumer.
We are already running power cables through the Channel Tunnel to import from France in the near future, and whilst work is slow on the Reactors, the possibilty of annoyed voters wanting to know where the power is will be enough to buck up the incumbents. The usual British method is to drag our feet till we are looming over the catastrophe curve and then spend lots of money...
waste lots of money..........on something thats massivley over budget, over schedule and proably still won't work.....
-
LOL Very true, but, once again, that's the nature of Beauracracies around the world. To quote Carl Sagan in Contact, "Why build one when you can build two for twice the price?"
-
Marshall Smuts was not a mere "individual". He was one of the most important persons in the empire.
Yet he was by no means alone responsible for all diverse facets that fall under the term "enviromentalism".
Also, I said it originated in "empirialism", which it did. Smuts was not an "individual" that "happened" to have a philosophy. His philosophy was imperialistic itself, and his ecology a perfect mirror image and a natural justification for the British empire.
This is awfully close to some kind of guilt by association.
The notion that human condition is a direct rendering of natural conditions is a key aspect and core to the environmental movement. This is what bases the ridiculous notions that the deaths in the floods in Pakistan, the tsunamis in asia, Katrina, etc., are a direct consequence of we daring to "touch" sacred Gaia, instead of figuring out the much more obvious link between the incompetence at defending ourselves against environmental hazards and the number of deaths. They are just unable to make this link, because it is anathema to their ideologies. This idea that human progress should be for us to disconnect ourselves from nature ever more is something that is completely at odds with most environmental ideologies.
So enviromentalism, which you dissed pretty badly just two pages ago for being horrendous disease, is synonymous to Gaia hypothesis? This is interesting notion. Could you tell us more about enviromentalism? I just love to hear your exceptionally well-argumented and not-bigoted-at-all stories about enviromentalist movements. Tell me how holistic approach fits into the long-term narrative of enviromentalism. I am especially thrilled to hear you explain how:
1. Audubon Society is actually a result of holistic thought,
2. How worries about chemical pollution are connected with Gaia hypothesis, and for ****s and giggles how
3. water conservation and protection can be explained as economically stagnatory force aiming for reduced quality of life.
Since you have such a good idea how British Imperialism is apparently a guiding force behind enviromentalism, you would also do well to explain how post-colonialistic enviromentalism movement in Western world has managed to not analyze it's past with imperialism and how it's actually possible that (nevermind the gaping timeline holes in this narrative!) this fact is overlooked by so many people.
Please do so! You have already put forth such a quality argument that I think I'm going to skip my biology lectures to hear more about this. I'm making notes here. All ears!
-
Marshall Smuts was not a mere "individual". He was one of the most important persons in the empire.
Yet he was by no means alone responsible for all diverse facets that fall under the term "enviromentalism".
No, of course not.
Also, I said it originated in "empirialism", which it did. Smuts was not an "individual" that "happened" to have a philosophy. His philosophy was imperialistic itself, and his ecology a perfect mirror image and a natural justification for the British empire.
This is awfully close to some kind of guilt by association.
No. Guilt by association would be if a person that "happened" to be an empirialist would find the right equations to, say, general relativity, and then we said that GR was "imperialistic".
That's guilt by association.
This is different. The philosophy of this gentleman stemmed directly from his impirialism, with the definition of an environment filled with order and hierarchy, where all things should remain in their place or otherwise we would face some environmental hazard, and that things would have always the trend to go back to how things "are" in their rightful place within the hierarchy. Which is incredibly convenient for an imperialist ***** to say.
The notion that human condition is a direct rendering of natural conditions is a key aspect and core to the environmental movement. This is what bases the ridiculous notions that the deaths in the floods in Pakistan, the tsunamis in asia, Katrina, etc., are a direct consequence of we daring to "touch" sacred Gaia, instead of figuring out the much more obvious link between the incompetence at defending ourselves against environmental hazards and the number of deaths. They are just unable to make this link, because it is anathema to their ideologies. This idea that human progress should be for us to disconnect ourselves from nature ever more is something that is completely at odds with most environmental ideologies.
So enviromentalism, which you dissed pretty badly just two pages ago for being horrendous disease,
It is a disease if you don't tame it with something else, like humanism.
... is synonymous to Gaia hypothesis? This is interesting notion. Could you tell us more about enviromentalism? I just love to hear your exceptionally well-argumented and not-bigoted-at-all stories about enviromentalist movements. Tell me how holistic approach fits into the long-term narrative of enviromentalism. I am especially thrilled to hear you explain how:
1. Audubon Society is actually a result of holistic thought,
Audubon Society is not among the worst. It did campaign for ending the DDT based on flimsy evidence, but that was a long time ago.
2. How worries about chemical pollution are connected with Gaia hypothesis, and for ****s and giggles how
As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.
3. water conservation and protection can be explained as economically stagnatory force aiming for reduced quality of life.
Square this out with the constant environmental attempts to end all types of hoover dams.
Since you have such a good idea how British Imperialism is apparently a guiding force behind enviromentalism, you would also do well to explain how post-colonialistic enviromentalism movement in Western world has managed to not analyze it's past with imperialism and how it's actually possible that (nevermind the gaping timeline holes in this narrative!) this fact is overlooked by so many people.
I spoke about the start point of an environmental point of view. I did not speak about its evolution. Fact remains that most environmental movements still think about the environment as a stable eden garden and us as the sinful adams and eves that ruin the world with our curiosity over technology and power. There are many aspects to this, and sure, many "imperialistic" concepts may have been stripped away. Many environmental movements have marxist people running it, many have just pure "conservatives", others liberal.
You have already put forth such a quality argument that I think I'm going to skip my biology lectures to hear more about this.
Please do so if you want to ruin your career. *****ing about a comment in an anonymous thread and threatening to forgo one's class over it is just silly on your part. I'd also want to hear more about how "biology lectures" have anything to do with environmentalism.
-
No, of course not.
Also, I said it originated in "empirialism", which it did. Smuts was not an "individual" that "happened" to have a philosophy. His philosophy was imperialistic itself, and his ecology a perfect mirror image and a natural justification for the British empire.
This is awfully close to some kind of guilt by association.
No. Guilt by association would be if a person that "happened" to be an empirialist would find the right equations to, say, general relativity, and then we said that GR was "imperialistic".
That's guilt by association.
This is different. The philosophy of this gentleman stemmed directly from his impirialism, with the definition of an environment filled with order and hierarchy, where all things should remain in their place or otherwise we would face some environmental hazard, and that things would have always the trend to go back to how things "are" in their rightful place within the hierarchy. Which is incredibly convenient for an imperialist ***** to say.
You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with. Of course you can see where this ideology goes to, and apart from the obviosities, we can also bring the Club of Rome and insert them into this ideology, based on a faulty science that has been long abandoned by Ecology itself.
Of course, not all "environmentalists" think like this (and especially the "root based" movements aren't like this at all, for obvious class reasons), but there exists a really deep elitistic groupthink inside these movements, and any heresy (like Bjorn Lomborg's for example) is treated in the most harsh way possible.
It is a disease if you don't tame it with something else, like humanism.
The environ-mental's deepest desire is not for having germany (or any other country) adopt fossil fuels, solar, wind or anything really. What they are striving is first to stagnate all the economy, and then bring it down, in a process that is called "Powerdown", so that we can live again in harmony with nature herself. So we can fellate her or smth, instead of raping her on her ass.
We have to fight against this anti-humanistic disease. Yeah, the planet is important, but if the only possible vision of the future is some kind of a medieval eternal dark age, then **** it. Might as well go down with a bang than with a whimper.
Hmmmmm,
Audubon Society is not among the worst. It did campaign for ending the DDT based on flimsy evidence, but that was a long time ago.
The point, of course, being that Audubon society, which has been pretty big in the history of enviromentalism, was founded weeell before holism - which you asserted rose with British Imperialism and is heavily dependent on holistic approach.
2. How worries about chemical pollution are connected with Gaia hypothesis, and for ****s and giggles how
As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.
Enviro-mentals. Pfaff. Now seriously my problem is pretty much your earlier attempts of weasel-wording and pigeonholing enviromental and green movements into some weirdo gaiatic antisocial movements. Some parts of your posting have been quite interesting.
The point about chemical pollution was that the chemical pollutants were found troubling and potentially dangerous well before stuff like Green movement or Gaia hypothesis were founded. The timeline and narrative you present is muddy.
3. water conservation and protection can be explained as economically stagnatory force aiming for reduced quality of life.
Square this out with the constant environmental attempts to end all types of hoover dams.
Protection of waterways and water quality assesment - including stuff like Water Framework Directive - have had and do continue to have a very specific human interest area. They focus heavily on protection of commons - partly because their ecological quality is deemed to have an intrisic value, but also because of water pollution and recreational use of waters are also "human" issues. Focusing purely on power generation completely ignores all other aspects of conservation. Water protection is among the most obvious areas of enviromental movements that has had a very tangible "ecosystem service" angle to it. For over 100 years!
Since you have such a good idea how British Imperialism is apparently a guiding force behind enviromentalism, you would also do well to explain how post-colonialistic enviromentalism movement in Western world has managed to not analyze it's past with imperialism and how it's actually possible that (nevermind the gaping timeline holes in this narrative!) this fact is overlooked by so many people.
I spoke about the start point of an environmental point of view. I did not speak about its evolution. Fact remains that most environmental movements still think about the environment as a stable eden garden and us as the sinful adams and eves that ruin the world with our curiosity over technology and power. There are many aspects to this, and sure, many "imperialistic" concepts may have been stripped away. Many environmental movements have marxist people running it, many have just pure "conservatives", others liberal.
But your start point was arbitrary and could very well be said to have been picked in bad faith. British imperialism? Really? I mean, if you talk about something as long and complicated as sociological movements and their history, isn't it quite a coincidence that you happen to pick some British militant from 1920s as you starting point - completely ignoring whatever came before that. Not even that, but you failed to mention that longer history existed until questioned about that.
How, you mention that "many enviromental movements" have this... thing about nature being a balanced, nearly utopian state. I happen to agree with that. It's just that its a gross exaggeration - especially, when your words come out as generalizing.
You have already put forth such a quality argument that I think I'm going to skip my biology lectures to hear more about this.
Please do so if you want to ruin your career. *****ing about a comment in an anonymous thread and threatening to forgo one's class over it is just silly on your part. I'd also want to hear more about how "biology lectures" have anything to do with environmentalism.
Hahaha lol. That was an attempt at sarcasm.
Well seriously speaking, practical approach to ecology and ecotoxicology gives one also a pretty good overview of different aspects of how enviromentalism is approached today. Obviously they consider the tools (such as modelling), but one cannot really learn about the tools without at least a cursory glance to applications. The value judgements ought to be left alone, but some areas of science have to make do with political guesswork, in which case the abstraction of completely objective science becomes muddled. How can you protect people from chemical X, when the methods for testing the danger posed to humans are either straight illegal or socially controlled to the point of being vilified? Hey this seems like certain parts of enviromentalist movements have more to do with their subjective values than what might be best from another point of view (nuclear power, animal tests are two obvious ones). But strangely trying to generalize these attributes to all enviromentalists is quite offensive to them. Could it be that the political framework itself is fragmented and you can only generalize about the overarching themes?
To be honest I find your idea and prejudices of enviromentalist movements to be extremely simple and exaggerated, and have very little to do with the vast majority of grassroots work and overall narrative of the work. Admittedly they do, at least in some respect, describe certain facets of Green movements pretty well.
-
quote is not edit
-
The point, of course, being that Audubon society, which has been pretty big in the history of enviromentalism, was founded weeell before holism - which you asserted rose with British Imperialism and is heavily dependent on holistic approach.
Fair point.
Enviro-mentals. Pfaff. Now seriously my problem is pretty much your earlier attempts of weasel-wording and pigeonholing enviromental and green movements into some weirdo gaiatic antisocial movements. Some parts of your posting have been quite interesting.
The point about chemical pollution was that the chemical pollutants were found troubling and potentially dangerous well before stuff like Green movement or Gaia hypothesis were founded. The timeline and narrative you present is muddy.
I never said that the Gaia hypothesis "founded" environmentalism. What I said is slightly different to that, IOW I'm characterizing what to me defines the environmentalism of today, which brings about all these concepts from back then.
[quoteSquare this out with the constant environmental attempts to end all types of hoover dams.
Protection of waterways and water quality assesment - including stuff like Water Framework Directive - have had and do continue to have a very specific human interest area. They focus heavily on protection of commons - partly because their ecological quality is deemed to have an intrisic value, but also because of water pollution and recreational use of waters are also "human" issues. Focusing purely on power generation completely ignores all other aspects of conservation. Water protection is among the most obvious areas of enviromental movements that has had a very tangible "ecosystem service" angle to it. For over 100 years! [/quote]
And you failed to address my point. It is a very simple point. Environmentalism tried to impeach almost every single water dam in my "neighborhood" (i.e. iberia), which will only increase either imports of energy or produce energy from coal, oil, gas, etc. Of course what you say is obviously true, we should look into all issues, not merely energetic interests. However this means that an environmentalist will always have bad things to say about any technology and will always try to impeach it, regardless of what this forces the countries to do instead.
So, we have environmentalists making huge campaigns against nuclear, trying to drive germany and other countries out of nukes. However to what other kind of energy source will they end up with? History teaches us the lesson: when Germany was in the same debate as we are now in 1986, Germany stopped building nukes and started to build... coal thermoelectric powerplants. And they won't stop. They will rise against even wind farms, for they are killing birds. The list is complete, there is no technology they will favor, except their own favorite: downsize, powerdown, "localize", "be more harmonious with nature", etc.,etc. This is holism at work (or even good ol' marxism criticism towards capitalist innovation of technology), even if only subliminally, unconsciously.
But your start point was arbitrary and could very well be said to have been picked in bad faith. British imperialism? Really? I mean, if you talk about something as long and complicated as sociological movements and their history, isn't it quite a coincidence that you happen to pick some British militant from 1920s as you starting point - completely ignoring whatever came before that. Not even that, but you failed to mention that longer history existed until questioned about that.
Yeah I concede that point. I was lazy.
Hahaha lol. That was an attempt at sarcasm.
ORLY.
Well seriously speaking, practical approach to ecology and ecotoxicology gives one also a pretty good overview of different aspects of how enviromentalism is approached today. Obviously they consider the tools (such as modelling), but one cannot really learn about the tools without at least a cursory glance to applications. The value judgements ought to be left alone, but some areas of science have to make do with political guesswork, in which case the abstraction of completely objective science becomes muddled. How can you protect people from chemical X, when the methods for testing the danger posed to humans are either straight illegal or socially controlled to the point of being vilified? Hey this seems like certain parts of enviromentalist movements have more to do with their subjective values than what might be best from another point of view (nuclear power, animal tests are two obvious ones). But strangely trying to generalize these attributes to all enviromentalists is quite offensive to them. Could it be that the political framework itself is fragmented and you can only generalize about the overarching themes?
In a word, yes. Most "greens" I see in the telly or elsewhere making some campaign or other for this or that, they are constantly invoking the same narratives, the same mythologies, the same "man is a sinful bastard" mantra, the apocalyptic paranoia mindset, the exact same characteristics I recognize in the same religions these urban atheists are still heavily influenced by.
To be honest I find your idea and prejudices of enviromentalist movements to be extremely simple and exaggerated, and have very little to do with the vast majority of grassroots work and overall narrative of the work. Admittedly they do, at least in some respect, describe certain facets of Green movements pretty well.
Yeah well I was going for provocative. Balanced opinions are dull and uninteresting.
-
this thread has just received the radioactive stamp of wank (tm) (graphic pending), for turning what could be an informative thread on nuclear power into a mindless philosophical debate.
-
Because a nuclear plant in Poland is being strongly considered and will most likely be built (and provide enough output to export the power), I wonder if a day will come that Germany will be partially dependant on Poland for energy supply. That would have been an interesting change. :)
-
We'll be much more dependant on France, I believe.
And that's just as bad.
-
Fair point.
I never said that the Gaia hypothesis "founded" environmentalism. What I said is slightly different to that, IOW I'm characterizing what to me defines the environmentalism of today, which brings about all these concepts from back then.
I still find you concept of enviromentalism so different from mine that it causes me cognitive stress. Especially since I consider myself somewhat of an enviromentalist, albeit more on the conservationist side.
And you failed to address my point. It is a very simple point. Environmentalism tried to impeach almost every single water dam in my "neighborhood" (i.e. iberia), which will only increase either imports of energy or produce energy from coal, oil, gas, etc. Of course what you say is obviously true, we should look into all issues, not merely energetic interests. However this means that an environmentalist will always have bad things to say about any technology and will always try to impeach it, regardless of what this forces the countries to do instead.
So, we have environmentalists making huge campaigns against nuclear, trying to drive germany and other countries out of nukes. However to what other kind of energy source will they end up with? History teaches us the lesson: when Germany was in the same debate as we are now in 1986, Germany stopped building nukes and started to build... coal thermoelectric powerplants. And they won't stop. They will rise against even wind farms, for they are killing birds. The list is complete, there is no technology they will favor, except their own favorite: downsize, powerdown, "localize", "be more harmonious with nature", etc.,etc. This is holism at work (or even good ol' marxism criticism towards capitalist innovation of technology), even if only subliminally, unconsciously.[/quote]
Fair enough, but does the generalization actually hold power or is it just lumping a bunch of sub-movements together, taking their subjectively worst attributes, mixing them together and then applying it to the entire movement? The people who are against coal power are often for nuclear power; people who are against nuclear power are often against coal power as well; opposition to wind power has more to do with the place, less with the technology itself, et cetera.
Let' see: Opposing nuclear power is idealistic, because it is "bad" in very long term - well beyond the objectors' lifetimes. Direct health or enviromental hazards are practically nonexistant. I would even go as far as to state that the propaganda on nuclear powers' dangers gave rise to immense costs, outrageous safety procedures and overreacting to any single problem. These can pretty handily be used to oppose nuclear power too! Perpetuum mobile.
Opposing fossil fuels is both idealistic and pragmatic, since opposing climate change is very obvious a matter of both present and future. Granted - if one opposes both it either requires the opponent to provide a reasonable explanation of just what to do, or is just inane.
Opposing hydroelectric power, on the other hand, has more to do with ecological and sociological purposes of waterways and their preservation. Also the fact that you can't just build them everywhere. Wind farm resistance is more nimbyism and locale critique than overall "this is bad"-critic. Even Greenpeace, whom you might argue to be among the more polarizing enviromentalist movements, states that solar and wind are the powers to go to.
Now just how much overlap is there? Certainly some, but definitely not all. In a bunch of socialists you'll always find people to argue for different levels of socialism that should be applicated to society - from social democrats to hard-line anarchists. In capitalist and liberal movements you'll find people like US Democratic party who flirt with the centrist and even social democratic ideals and then you'll find laissez fair -capitalists and anarchocapitalists, who argue that state ITSELF is an immoral creation. Differentiating between the different schools of thought and also the advocates is necessary for analysis - unless you wish to question the entire movement and its fundamentals.
Now of course when all of these are combined you get stuff like current Germany. No to nuclear power, no to fossil fuels and on the top of that ridiculous "no to power transfer lines" - which, together, are a bizarre combination unless you explicitly subscribe to the ideology of radically cutting down on consumption. This is actually not a bad idea and merits a throughout look, but it is definitely a topic better reserved for it's own topic.
In a word, yes. Most "greens" I see in the telly or elsewhere making some campaign or other for this or that, they are constantly invoking the same narratives, the same mythologies, the same "man is a sinful bastard" mantra, the apocalyptic paranoia mindset, the exact same characteristics I recognize in the same religions these urban atheists are still heavily influenced by.
In this case I have to say that although I recognize the phenomenon you talk about, it does not simply hold much sway here in northern Europe. Hell, the enviromentalist movement in here is fragmented to relatively technocratic and socially liberal "right-wing" movement, the politically insignificant and more radical enviromentalism with a touch of deep ecologism and the grassroots field that is often divided between enviromentalists and conservationists. I position myself firmly at the conservationist side.
-
this thread has just received the radioactive stamp of wank (tm) (graphic pending), for turning what could be an informative thread on nuclear power into a mindless philosophical debate.
You can't have a discussion of nuclear power and it's phase-out without discussing both pro- and antinuclear movements and their arguments - including the fundamental philosophy of the two. Otherwise you mix tools and goals together. If you want informative discussion of nuclear power you can just browse Wikipedia and articles in magazines, but that's just it - numbers and graphs.
-
Fair point.
I never said that the Gaia hypothesis "founded" environmentalism. What I said is slightly different to that, IOW I'm characterizing what to me defines the environmentalism of today, which brings about all these concepts from back then.
I still find you concept of enviromentalism so different from mine that it causes me cognitive stress. Especially since I consider myself somewhat of an enviromentalist, albeit more on the conservationist side.
I can relate to that. It's difficult to hear from someone on the internet that you are somehow "infected with an ideological disease", thing is we all are. Whenever people don't understand the frailty of our beliefs and ideologies, that's when it gets dangerous. Take Monbiot for instance. Last month he got into a "fight" against a very respected environmentalist in the issue of nuclear. Monbiot couldn't believe that one of his idols was taking what he considered "the same tactics of climate change denialists", by denying the scientific evidence of the lack of deaths from Chernobyl, etc. The environmentalist (I don't remember her name exactly) wouldn't trust his numbers, since they came from the "lobby" of the nuclear industry (although they were from the UN). It was a matter of trust, and the environmentalist didn't trust anyone who painted a rosy picture of what she thinks is hell incarnate.
Trouble is, for all Monbiot's despair and condemnation, he failed to see that he himself was parroting the exact same criticisms towards the nuclear lobbies and dangers ten years ago.
And I cannot dissociate this cognitive dissonance from environmentalism as a whole.
Thing is, they've been mostly wrong about pretty much everything.
They were wrong about DDT. They were wrong about the acid rain that would destroy the forests in 2000, they were wrong about peak oil, they were wrong about the extinction of most species by the turn of the century, they were and still are wrong about nuclear, they are utterly wrong about agriculture and specially about GM, etc.,etc.
So SURE, let's all worry about the environment and do something about it. For starters, let's reform all these environmental institutions and get rid of the loonies.
Fair enough, but does the generalization actually hold power or is it just lumping a bunch of sub-movements together, taking their subjectively worst attributes, mixing them together and then applying it to the entire movement? The people who are against coal power are often for nuclear power; people who are against nuclear power are often against coal power as well; opposition to wind power has more to do with the place, less with the technology itself, et cetera.
What I see is the end result: Germany is deciding to abandon nuclear. And I don't see environmental movements saddened by this choice, much to the contrary, which to me is utterly stupid and demonstrative of the irrelevance and uselessness of these movements.
Let' see: Opposing nuclear power is idealistic, because it is "bad" in very long term - well beyond the objectors' lifetimes. Direct health or enviromental hazards are practically nonexistant. I would even go as far as to state that the propaganda on nuclear powers' dangers gave rise to immense costs, outrageous safety procedures and overreacting to any single problem. These can pretty handily be used to oppose nuclear power too! Perpetuum mobile.
Opposing fossil fuels is both idealistic and pragmatic, since opposing climate change is very obvious a matter of both present and future. Granted - if one opposes both it either requires the opponent to provide a reasonable explanation of just what to do, or is just inane.
Exactly.
Opposing hydroelectric power, on the other hand, has more to do with ecological and sociological purposes of waterways and their preservation. Also the fact that you can't just build them everywhere. Wind farm resistance is more nimbyism and locale critique than overall "this is bad"-critic. Even Greenpeace, whom you might argue to be among the more polarizing enviromentalist movements, states that solar and wind are the powers to go to.
Yes, and still solar is still a godawful pollutant. Which is kinda baffling innit?
Now just how much overlap is there? Certainly some, but definitely not all. In a bunch of socialists you'll always find people to argue for different levels of socialism that should be applicated to society - from social democrats to hard-line anarchists. In capitalist and liberal movements you'll find people like US Democratic party who flirt with the centrist and even social democratic ideals and then you'll find laissez fair -capitalists and anarchocapitalists, who argue that state ITSELF is an immoral creation. Differentiating between the different schools of thought and also the advocates is necessary for analysis - unless you wish to question the entire movement and its fundamentals.
Question everything why not? Neither the state nor environmentalism are immoral things. But we must be aware that command-economy doesn't work very well, and thus we shouldn't turn to the government every and each time we have a "problem". As a matter of fact, we ought to aspire to a certain minimalism in the action of the government (and I'm not even a right winger!). Equally, we should also see the nastiness of taking the environmental issues "too seriously" and the ridiculous results that transpire.
This is actually not a bad idea and merits a throughout look, but it is definitely a topic better reserved for it's own topic.
Yeah it definitely deserves to be discussed in its own right. Because, you see, I'm completely against it. I don't think that "downsizing" is a meritable policy, a meritable vision of the future. Economize, yes, downsize, no.
In this case I have to say that although I recognize the phenomenon you talk about, it does not simply hold much sway here in northern Europe. Hell, the enviromentalist movement in here is fragmented to relatively technocratic and socially liberal "right-wing" movement, the politically insignificant and more radical enviromentalism with a touch of deep ecologism and the grassroots field that is often divided between enviromentalists and conservationists. I position myself firmly at the conservationist side.
Which only makes sense. I never got why so many american conservatives seemed to be so firmly against *every* environmental policy, it seemed also dissonant. But the world is crazy.
-
We'll be much more dependant on France, I believe.
And that's just as bad.
And it's what you deserve for letting your hysteria get the better of you. :P
-
this thread has just received the radioactive stamp of wank (tm) (graphic pending), for turning what could be an informative thread on nuclear power into a mindless philosophical debate.
You can't have a discussion of nuclear power and it's phase-out without discussing both pro- and antinuclear movements and their arguments - including the fundamental philosophy of the two. Otherwise you mix tools and goals together. If you want informative discussion of nuclear power you can just browse Wikipedia and articles in magazines, but that's just it - numbers and graphs.
this thread became un-interesting when it went from discussion of technology to debate about environmentalist philosophy. theres debate and theres wankery and this is wankery. yes this is something im gonna do. every time i feel a debate has gone to the wankers, im gonna give it my official stamp of wankery. it doesnt mean im gonna lock the thread, but it will be sufficient to express my disgust with the wasted energy of those trying to reverse decisions made by people who had the balls to make them.
-
this thread has just received the radioactive stamp of wank (tm) (graphic pending), for turning what could be an informative thread on nuclear power into a mindless philosophical debate.
You can't have a discussion of nuclear power and it's phase-out without discussing both pro- and antinuclear movements and their arguments - including the fundamental philosophy of the two. Otherwise you mix tools and goals together. If you want informative discussion of nuclear power you can just browse Wikipedia and articles in magazines, but that's just it - numbers and graphs.
this thread became un-interesting when it went from discussion of technology to debate about environmentalist philosophy. theres debate and theres wankery and this is wankery. yes this is something im gonna do. every time i feel a debate has gone to the wankers, im gonna give it my official stamp of wankery. it doesnt mean im gonna lock the thread, but it will be sufficient to express my disgust with the wasted energy of those trying to reverse decisions made by people who had the balls to make them.
The real problem with the nuclear debate is that for the anti nuke crowd it really isn't about science, or solving problems, or really anything else based in reality. Instead it is almost entirely based on doctrine.
-
We'll be much more dependant on France, I believe.
And that's just as bad.
And it's what you deserve for letting your hysteria get the better of you. :P
Yeah. We should have stayed with a technocratic, entirely rational regime. [/sarcasm]
Democracies are stupid like this. It's an unfortunate side effect of giving the masses a voice.
-
We'll be much more dependant on France, I believe.
And that's just as bad.
And it's what you deserve for letting your hysteria get the better of you. :P
Yeah. We should have stayed with a technocratic, entirely rational regime. [/sarcasm]
Democracies are stupid like this. It's an unfortunate side effect of giving the masses a voice.
Only because the Ubuntu Party isn't in power. :)
-
this thread became un-interesting when it went from discussion of technology to debate about environmentalist philosophy. theres debate and theres wankery and this is wankery. yes this is something im gonna do. every time i feel a debate has gone to the wankers, im gonna give it my official stamp of wankery. it doesnt mean im gonna lock the thread, but it will be sufficient to express my disgust with the wasted energy of those trying to reverse decisions made by people who had the balls to make them.
wait, people discussing the merits and sins of enviromentalism and nuclear power isn't discussion but wankery?
what's discussion, then? the same old thinly veiled circlejerk where people go on and on about just HOW GREAT AND SUPERB nuclear pornogr--- POWER is in all ways. def not political or philosophical ps. stupid luddites lol
?
-
Don't mind Nuke, he's just wanking gibberish :p
In a more important note, HEEEEEEERE we go again:
BERLIN—Germany needs to build twice the number of new fossil-fuel power plants than the government previously had earmarked in order to secure energy security while exiting nuclear power, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, while sticking to ambitious emission-reduction goals.
"If we want to exit nuclear energy and enter renewable energy, for the transition time we need fossil power plants," Ms. Merkel said in a parliamentary declaration on her government's decision to phase out nuclear power. "At least 10, more likely 20 gigawatts [of fossil capacity] need to be built in the coming 10 years."
That is more than the generation capacity of Belgium, which in 2009 had capacity to generate more than 17.3 gigawatts, according to the Union of the Electricity Industry, a Europe-wide sector group.
Previously the German government had spoken of a need for an additional 10 gigawatts in fossil-fuel generation capacity. The extra amount would be in addition to 10 gigawatts already in construction or in planning that should be completed by 2013, Ms. Merkel said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375154034042070.html
Congratulations, German Greens! Another mindblowing victory for thee!!
If I was a little more paranoid, I'd make a wild guess and say that these ****ing lunatics are actually employed by the coal industry.
Aaaaaand here's the inevitable cognitive dissonance still wild at large:
The new power stations will be both gas- and coal-fired, Ms. Merkel said, adding that at the same time Germany wants to stick to its target of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels.
Yeah, let's approve a plan that will skyrocket the CO2 emmissions, while claiming at the very same ****ing sentence that you are "commited" to reduce them. GOOOO MERKEL!
-
this thread became un-interesting when it went from discussion of technology to debate about environmentalist philosophy. theres debate and theres wankery and this is wankery. yes this is something im gonna do. every time i feel a debate has gone to the wankers, im gonna give it my official stamp of wankery. it doesnt mean im gonna lock the thread, but it will be sufficient to express my disgust with the wasted energy of those trying to reverse decisions made by people who had the balls to make them.
wait, people discussing the merits and sins of enviromentalism and nuclear power isn't discussion but wankery?
what's discussion, then? the same old thinly veiled circlejerk where people go on and on about just HOW GREAT AND SUPERB nuclear pornogr--- POWER is in all ways. def not political or philosophical ps. stupid luddites lol
?
its when the debate reads like a for loop that i start wanting to torture-murder people. when its less like comparing apples to oranges and more like comparing tangerines to mandarins. thats when it deserves the stamp of wank.
furthermore the stamp of wank will be applied to any debate thread where i find the debate goes in repetitive circles of rhetoric and bull****. i just need to make a graphic.
do not question the stamp! wear it proudly and accept the wrath of those that view over-thinking a problem as a mortal sin.
-
Don't mind Nuke, he's just wanking gibberish :p
In a more important note, HEEEEEEERE we go again:
BERLIN—Germany needs to build twice the number of new fossil-fuel power plants than the government previously had earmarked in order to secure energy security while exiting nuclear power, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, while sticking to ambitious emission-reduction goals.
"If we want to exit nuclear energy and enter renewable energy, for the transition time we need fossil power plants," Ms. Merkel said in a parliamentary declaration on her government's decision to phase out nuclear power. "At least 10, more likely 20 gigawatts [of fossil capacity] need to be built in the coming 10 years."
That is more than the generation capacity of Belgium, which in 2009 had capacity to generate more than 17.3 gigawatts, according to the Union of the Electricity Industry, a Europe-wide sector group.
Previously the German government had spoken of a need for an additional 10 gigawatts in fossil-fuel generation capacity. The extra amount would be in addition to 10 gigawatts already in construction or in planning that should be completed by 2013, Ms. Merkel said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375154034042070.html
Yeah that was just AWESOME. I love how those of my friends who celebrated the idea of Germany getting rid of their nuclear capacity and completely swept aside this fear. Now they are dead silent.
I hate to be right sometimes.
Yeah, let's approve a plan that will skyrocket the CO2 emmissions, while claiming at the very same ****ing sentence that you are "commited" to reduce them. GOOOO MERKEL!
To be honest it wasn't Merkel's idea. The plan to phase out nuclear was approved in 2000 by Greens and SPD. Merkel actually postponed the phaseout but now it is in full effect.
It was already stated - but conveniently ignored - that Germany would replace nuclear with gas power and was in the process of building coal power even well before the nuclear phaseout was confirmed. Now we just hear that hey, yeah, Germany needs electricity. All this talk about this arrangement being temporary is just complete, utter bull**** - no one's going to scrap new power plants in 15 years' time.
I really wonder. It would be possible to oppose both nuclear and fossil fuels and have a sensible road map of phasing out both (well sensible and sensible, but you get the idea). However, by focusing solely on the nuclear power this is what you get. Well of course if opposing nuclear is priority number one then this is a great victory. Depends on the people I guess.
-
Idiocy abundant.
From what I've heard in the past, much of the stifling legislation in the US against nuclear power stems from the Carter Administration, and was not in many regards formed of coherent, scientific thought. Out of date, out of touch, and fueled by ignorance.
Here's a concept to consider: a House or Parliament mush have a certain quota of qualified engineers/scientists elected into office to fulfill duties as a general scientific council. Making the selection of these individuals similar to that of "jury duty" in the US would ideally help to randomize official backgrounds/orientations and thus reduce political corruption...
...Sidetracked conceptual rant over. :)
-
wouldn't that be nice.
the wonderfully mind-boggling thing about carter's castration of the nuclear industry is that he was a navy nuke.
sidetracked comment on sidetracked rant over.
-
Yeah but then I'd have to go the market to get my pork.
-
I can relate to that. It's difficult to hear from someone on the internet that you are somehow "infected with an ideological disease", thing is we all are. Whenever people don't understand the frailty of our beliefs and ideologies, that's when it gets dangerous. Take Monbiot for instance. Last month he got into a "fight" against a very respected environmentalist in the issue of nuclear. Monbiot couldn't believe that one of his idols was taking what he considered "the same tactics of climate change denialists", by denying the scientific evidence of the lack of deaths from Chernobyl, etc. The environmentalist (I don't remember her name exactly) wouldn't trust his numbers, since they came from the "lobby" of the nuclear industry (although they were from the UN). It was a matter of trust, and the environmentalist didn't trust anyone who painted a rosy picture of what she thinks is hell incarnate.
Trouble is, for all Monbiot's despair and condemnation, he failed to see that he himself was parroting the exact same criticisms towards the nuclear lobbies and dangers ten years ago.
Thank you for patronizing. It is funny, though. You haven't exactly provided yourself to be a completely impartial source, and I have no idea why you try to invoke somewhat a position of authority by sidetracking the argument to something no one is associated with. Monbiot vs. "some very respected enviromentalist" (no idea whatshisname) :D is somehow relevant to this discussion?
Obviously yes, if you wish the continue your discredition of enviromental movements to the max - which you seem eager to do. However, invoking such a clause - especially in nuclear discussion - is interesting, since no one here has actually defended nuclear phaseout.
And I cannot dissociate this cognitive dissonance from environmentalism as a whole.
So it's your own prejudices, then?
Thing is, they've been mostly wrong about pretty much everything.
They were wrong about DDT.
What does this mean. Wrong about what and how? That it was a problem? This is more than interesting, I am waiting for you to provide some scathing review articles that tell us just how THEY!!! have been wrong.
They were wrong about the acid rain that would destroy the forests in 2000
Where does the number 2000 come from? Do you state that acidification is not a problem? :D Do you fail to see that the reason it isn't such a big problem as it was predicted is because people acted on it?
You see, world is full of wrong predictions. And the world is full of bad critique of predictions. If a prediction A is based on a curve, then changing the parameters of the curve will render that prediction invalid in no time. That makes the prediction invalid because assumptions are no longer true.
they were wrong about peak oil
What does this mean? That it doesn't come? That it does not exist? Or just the timeframe?
they were wrong about the extinction of most species by the turn of the century
1. Who?, 2. When was a statement to this effect made, 3. How much does it matter if the timetable slides from one arbitrary date to another date that is practically the same in the long run.
they were and still are wrong about nuclear
That I do not question.
they are utterly wrong about agriculture and specially about GM, etc.,etc.
Wrong about agriculture? How? Is there a singular problem with agriculture that all enviromentalist critique is based on?
You see, the thing here is that you say they without specifying whom you mean, you make blanket statements, you patronize and before that you use weasel words, completely mindboggling assumptions, ridiculously admit that you just provocate on purpose, and then claim that whoever questions your motives is somehow ideologically blind?
This entire post is a textbook example of strawmanning.
What I find the most ridiculous in all of this is your weak attempt in trying to claim to be somehow impartial or more logical, when your every single post in here just reeks of purely ideological attack on every value of enviromentalism. Above that, you simply just lump all cherry-picked arguments into a one incoherent bunch - without even saying who presents said arguments - and then attack this monstrosity you have created as "enviromentalism". It would do you well to oppose, say, Greenpeace's views, since those seem to be the ones you most adamantly oppose. Of course, this does not answer the question why you need to so staunchly oppose a viewpoint no one in the thread supports, but whatever, we attack ridiculous worldviews all the time.
I have to give you credit of openly admitting your biases, though.
So SURE, let's all worry about the environment and do something about it. For starters, let's reform all these environmental institutions and get rid of the loonies.
And wouldn't it just be nice if it was you who got to decide who was a loonie. Please tell us.
What I see is the end result: Germany is deciding to abandon nuclear. And I don't see environmental movements saddened by this choice, much to the contrary, which to me is utterly stupid and demonstrative of the irrelevance and uselessness of these movements.
"You don't see?" Oh how handy. Obviously all of this discussion and wailing about it only exists in our heads. Is a green politician arguing for nuclear power either a hypocrite or a heretic?
The problem is that many enviromentalist movements that have large presence are very much against nuclear power. That does not mean the entire field is, especially at the grassroots - but I admit it is one of the biggest problems.
Yeah it definitely deserves to be discussed in its own right. Because, you see, I'm completely against it. I don't think that "downsizing" is a meritable policy, a meritable vision of the future. Economize, yes, downsize, no.
Which only makes sense. I never got why so many american conservatives seemed to be so firmly against *every* environmental policy, it seemed also dissonant. But the world is crazy.
lol
Actually it seems you have a very specific definition of enviromentalist movement. It would do well to define it a bit better.
-
What I find the most ridiculous in all of this is your weak attempt in trying to claim to be somehow impartial or more logical, when your every single post in here just reeks of purely ideological attack on every value of enviromentalism. Above that, you simply just lump all cherry-picked arguments into a one incoherent bunch - without even saying who presents said arguments - and then attack this monstrosity you have created as "enviromentalism".
While Luis Dias is not a bad guy this is actually a pretty familiar pattern.
-
Thank you for patronizing. It is funny, though. You haven't exactly provided yourself to be a completely impartial source, and I have no idea why you try to invoke somewhat a position of authority by sidetracking the argument to something no one is associated with. Monbiot vs. "some very respected enviromentalist" (no idea whatshisname) :D is somehow relevant to this discussion?
Obviously yes, if you wish the continue your discredition of enviromental movements to the max - which you seem eager to do. However, invoking such a clause - especially in nuclear discussion - is interesting, since no one here has actually defended nuclear phaseout.
Not my intention of patronization, I'm sorry about that. About the nuclear phaseout, last time I checked that was the topic we were discussing in the first place, innit? You will find that time to time I'll reference to the topic of the thread.
So it's your own prejudices, then?
It's my analysis which is also filled with prejudices, sure.
What does this mean. Wrong about what and how? That it was a problem? This is more than interesting, I am waiting for you to provide some scathing review articles that tell us just how THEY!!! have been wrong.
Pretty much every environmental movement that uttered the word "DDT" spoke how it was really a toxine and not a cure.
Do you really deny history now? DDT is nowadays considered pretty much safe in all standards, the only trouble with it is that we shouldn't spam the planet with it, running the risk of fostering bacteria that is resistant to it.
Where does the number 2000 come from? Do you state that acidification is not a problem? :D Do you fail to see that the reason it isn't such a big problem as it was predicted is because people acted on it?
You see, world is full of wrong predictions. And the world is full of bad critique of predictions. If a prediction A is based on a curve, then changing the parameters of the curve will render that prediction invalid in no time. That makes the prediction invalid because assumptions are no longer true.
OK, so tell me what exactly was done to prevent acidrainmeltdown? Because last time I checked, China is currently building coal thermoelectric plants every 3 or 4 days, without any kind of environmental concern at all.
they were wrong about peak oil
What does this mean? That it doesn't come? That it does not exist? Or just the timeframe?
Do you want me to quote president of the USA Jimmy Carter on how peak oil would mean that the world would have to phase out oil in no time, since it would come by by the eighties? DO you want me to quote all the illuminaries that have proclaimed doom and gloom for the past 40 ****ing years that it was just "by the corner"?
"Peak Oil" will happen. One day. And it will be ****ing irrelevant for all of us. We won't even notice it.
1. Who?, 2. When was a statement to this effect made, 3. How much does it matter if the timetable slides from one arbitrary date to another date that is practically the same in the long run.
The UN. And that's exactly right. It doesn't matter if the arbitrary date is 2000 or 2010 or 2035. It's wrong anyways.
Anyways, some food for thougth, http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/species-extinctions-and-question.html
they are utterly wrong about agriculture and specially about GM, etc.,etc.
Wrong about agriculture? How? Is there a singular problem with agriculture that all enviromentalist critique is based on?
They envision an agriculture that is based upon "locality", that is "organic", that doesn't include tens of thousands of miles of transportation of food, etc., that doesn't include "chemicals" or GMs.
Pure anti-scientific RUBBISH.
What I find the most ridiculous in all of this is your weak attempt in trying to claim to be somehow impartial or more logical, when your every single post in here just reeks of purely ideological attack on every value of enviromentalism.
I don't understand you, you just came out and saw my posts today? I've been attacking the ideology of environmentalism since I started posting in this thread, what the hell are you talking about.
It would do you well to oppose, say, Greenpeace's views, since those seem to be the ones you most adamantly oppose. Of course, this does not answer the question why you need to so staunchly oppose a viewpoint no one in the thread supports, but whatever, we attack ridiculous worldviews all the time.
It's not only Greenpeace unfortunately, but many if not most environmental movements that got most of these things wrong.
And when people like Mark Lynas, a staunch environmentalist, dared to point it out too, he got the same emotional replies that you are tossing here as well.
And wouldn't it just be nice if it was you who got to decide who was a loonie. Please tell us.
How do you really think "loonies" are classified? By the "sane" people of course. I don't get you. Next thing will be what, that I'm merely "giving an opinion"?
"You don't see?" Oh how handy. Obviously all of this discussion and wailing about it only exists in our heads. Is a green politician arguing for nuclear power either a hypocrite or a heretic?
Not an hypocrite, but an heretic. Check Lynas or Monbiot and the trashing they got into. Bjorn Lomborg was tossed into the garbage bin a decade ago, for he dared to question environmental myths. This is nothing new.
Which only makes sense. I never got why so many american conservatives seemed to be so firmly against *every* environmental policy, it seemed also dissonant. But the world is crazy.
lol
Actually it seems you have a very specific definition of enviromentalist movement. It would do well to define it a bit better.
The definition is: " the group of movements that I know of or have been exposed to". Perhaps the least mediatic groups are the ones who do get it right, but I would say that is a wild speculation based on nothing but wishful thinking.
-
While Luis Dias is not a bad guy this is actually a pretty familiar pattern.
Cry me a river!
-
While Luis Dias is not a bad guy this is actually a pretty familiar pattern.
Cry me a river!
(http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-qqsay.gif)
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
I like to think of people who use this comic as the siblings of people who say ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US and expect laughs
-
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/4/14/7f9bbf27-a43d-4169-a1ee-fffb2a22398e.jpg)
-
Not my intention of patronization, I'm sorry about that. About the nuclear phaseout, last time I checked that was the topic we were discussing in the first place, innit? You will find that time to time I'll reference to the topic of the thread.
Oh, I thought we had slipped into enviromentalism discussion. You know, the part where THEY ARE WRONG comes from? But allright.
What does this mean. Wrong about what and how? That it was a problem? This is more than interesting, I am waiting for you to provide some scathing review articles that tell us just how THEY!!! have been wrong.
Pretty much every environmental movement that uttered the word "DDT" spoke how it was really a toxine and not a cure.
Well, you failed to provide sources to prove just exactly who THEY are.
DDT is a toxicant. It is applied as such, as an insecticide. It was it's entire purpose and it still functions well enough in that role throughout equator. What do you mean by cure? Do you speak figuratively?
Do you really deny history now?
I do deny yours. I happen study ecotoxicology and ecology. I doubt you are in a position of authority if you fail to provide any kind of sources for your claims.
DDT is nowadays considered pretty much safe in all standards, the only trouble with it is that we shouldn't spam the planet with it, running the risk of fostering bacteria that is resistant to it.
That was not why DDT was considered bad. That was not why it was banned in Western Countries. Human concern had little basis on the DDT ban whatsoever.
DDT was banned because as a POP it's subject to biomagnification and presumably bioaccumulation. It is most famously one of the compounds responsible for decline of birds of prey - together with other organochloric compounds. The actual mechanism, thinning of eggshells, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As a biomagnifying POP the reasons for DDT ban were not human hazards. There's a pretty good review of DDT from Rogan & Chen 2005 in Lancet 366:763-773.
Where does the number 2000 come from? Do you state that acidification is not a problem? :D Do you fail to see that the reason it isn't such a big problem as it was predicted is because people acted on it?
You see, world is full of wrong predictions. And the world is full of bad critique of predictions. If a prediction A is based on a curve, then changing the parameters of the curve will render that prediction invalid in no time. That makes the prediction invalid because assumptions are no longer true.
OK, so tell me what exactly was done to prevent acidrainmeltdown?[/quote]
Oh I don't know, maybe something like actually lowering the amount of sulphur in emissions? Stuff like http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3663/2007/acp-7-3663-2007.pdf this that wasn't too difficult to find?
Because last time I checked, China is currently building coal thermoelectric plants every 3 or 4 days, without any kind of environmental concern at all.
And this has something to do with the history of acid rain or it's adverse effects or remediation of them because of..? I have no firsthand familiarity of Chinese situation. Maybe there's a source somewhere, telling how Chinese example means that acid rain was never a problem at all.
they were wrong about peak oil
What does this mean? That it doesn't come? That it does not exist? Or just the timeframe?
Do you want me to quote president of the USA Jimmy Carter on how peak oil would mean that the world would have to phase out oil in no time, since it would come by by the eighties? DO you want me to quote all the illuminaries that have proclaimed doom and gloom for the past 40 ****ing years that it was just "by the corner"?
"Peak Oil" will happen. One day. And it will be ****ing irrelevant for all of us. We won't even notice it.[/quote]
Oh yes. That. Walked into a mine. Carter's warning of peak oil came after US oil production had hit it's peak, but before the large discoveries of oil reserves in 1980s. You may take even wikileaks with a pinch of salt, but even Saudies seemed conserned about the fact just a moment ago.
The entire problem is that 1) oil consumption increases all the time in global scale, 2) oil is a globally traded commodity, and 3) potential of new discoveries dimishes. 2 and 3 wouldn't be a problem if 1 didn't mean that nothing is done.
1. Who?, 2. When was a statement to this effect made, 3. How much does it matter if the timetable slides from one arbitrary date to another date that is practically the same in the long run.
The UN.[/quote]
Where and when? I mean, you need to be a bit more precise. "The UN?"
And that's exactly right. It doesn't matter if the arbitrary date is 2000 or 2010 or 2035. It's wrong anyways.
So you question the existence of current extinction event or the rate thereof? This is an important distinction.
Let's see. We have a fossil record saying that yes, species are going extinct fast. We have data of large amount of species disappearing in a very short timespan after human colonization of areas. We have estimations of biodiversity centers, AND we have estimations of the loss of these biodiversity centers. We can just look at tropical rainforests, take any assumption of the amount of species living there and calculate coldly the projected loss of diversity if the unerlying assumptions are not changed. The assumption that you can just remove habitat and not have an adverse effect on species numbers is frankly very weird - and that's the underlying assumption in these extinction rates.
So you can state that the arbitrary date is wrong. Does that remove the problem? Do you even think of it as a problem? Do you think the problem warrants a closer look or interest? How do you propose this thing could be approached?
Besides, your statement of "THEM!" then becomes weird. It's not like extinction event is a ideological assumption. There are hundreds of scientific articles about it. Maybe THEY are part of THEM as well?
Anyways, some food for thougth, http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/species-extinctions-and-question.html
Thanks for the link.
they are utterly wrong about agriculture and specially about GM, etc.,etc.
Wrong about agriculture? How? Is there a singular problem with agriculture that all enviromentalist critique is based on?
They envision an agriculture that is based upon "locality", that is "organic", that doesn't include tens of thousands of miles of transportation of food, etc., that doesn't include "chemicals" or GMs.[/quote]
YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. Who are "they"? Where do "they" state these things?
Pure anti-scientific RUBBISH.
Hell yeah it is, especially if you make up your opponent.
What I find the most ridiculous in all of this is your weak attempt in trying to claim to be somehow impartial or more logical, when your every single post in here just reeks of purely ideological attack on every value of enviromentalism.
I don't understand you, you just came out and saw my posts today? I've been attacking the ideology of environmentalism since I started posting in this thread, what the hell are you talking about.
Oh really?
As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took that as meaning what you said. An obvious mistake, in retrospect.
It would do you well to oppose, say, Greenpeace's views, since those seem to be the ones you most adamantly oppose. Of course, this does not answer the question why you need to so staunchly oppose a viewpoint no one in the thread supports, but whatever, we attack ridiculous worldviews all the time.
It's not only Greenpeace unfortunately, but many if not most environmental movements that got most of these things wrong.
"Most, if not all" Come on this is getting ridiculous.
And when people like Mark Lynas, a staunch environmentalist, dared to point it out too, he got the same emotional replies that you are tossing here as well.
Where am I emotional? Is it because I dare to point out your strawmanning? Or your questionable pick of examples? Maybe your distorted arguments about commonly accepted facts, like DDT or acid rain? Maybe because it would be nice if you provided sources for your arguments?
And wouldn't it just be nice if it was you who got to decide who was a loonie. Please tell us.
How do you really think "loonies" are classified? By the "sane" people of course. I don't get you. Next thing will be what, that I'm merely "giving an opinion"?
Since you speak of loonies and mentalists it is obvious that your problem with conservation and enviromentalism is not based on facts. Despite you stating that something is "unscientific rubbish", these kind of lines betray you. Scientific has nothing to do with it, because if it had, you could easily provide sources and constructive criticism - something you have absolutely failed to do in this thread. Your statement of "sanity" is just thinly veiled hostility - a conventient mental escape, where you don't even have to address their arguments (even if they are obviously faulty) because you can just declare your opponents as lunatics. Not a very novel approach to political opponents, is it?
It is painfully obvious that you have a very big axe to grind with anything you consider to be enviromentalism. Therefor your statement of "loonies" is in no way objective or warrants any kind of critical thought, since it is only you shouting out your personal bias.
"You don't see?" Oh how handy. Obviously all of this discussion and wailing about it only exists in our heads. Is a green politician arguing for nuclear power either a hypocrite or a heretic?
Not an hypocrite, but an heretic. Check Lynas or Monbiot and the trashing they got into. Bjorn Lomborg was tossed into the garbage bin a decade ago, for he dared to question environmental myths. This is nothing new.
Yet they do exist and even have some weight in political discourse. How interesting. Maybe they aren't enviromentalists at all, then?
But anyways. You haven't been able to even name any of these horrendous enviromentalists you so staunchly oppose, even less to point out where they as some kind of collective espouse these kind of views.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
I like to think of people who use this comic as the siblings of people who say ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US and expect laughs
awful lot effort you put into thread****ting there mate
i mean for the fact you don't apparently care you spend a lot of time stating it
do you expect somekind of sympathy for your suffering
-
In Luis Dias land, this is how groups work:
There are monolithic entities which hold evil views. They are to be attacked and marginalized. Religion, feminism, environmentalism, doesn't matter! They're all extreme and dangerous ideologies, well beyond reason, sustained by lunatics.
Anyone who could conceivably be placed under the labels of these groups, but who holds views that seem moderate, nuanced, or otherwise dangerously close to sense, is a heretic and not a real member of these groups. There are not many of them and they have no effect on policy, and they should be ignored (Luis Dias has never met any of them)
If you think this is fun (the fun never ends if you do) you are in for a good time.
*at least three years behind what's funny*
I like to think of people who use this comic as the siblings of people who say ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US and expect laughs
awful lot effort you put into thread****ting there mate
i mean for the fact you don't apparently care you spend a lot of time stating it
do you expect somekind of sympathy for your suffering
Who are you talking to, it could really apply to both of us (but if it's me I will get huffy)
-
REally. There's a difference between Environmentalism as an ideology and as a concern. I hope you understand the difference because to me that's pretty obvious. I'll get to your other points when I have the time. I'm under time pressure right now.
-
DDT is a toxicant. It is applied as such, as an insecticide. It was it's entire purpose and it still functions well enough in that role throughout equator. What do you mean by cure? Do you speak figuratively?
Yes. DDT was wildly demonized by "Silent Spring", following its US ban ten years later (72). The book criticisms on DDT was that it caused cancer and bird issues. You are right in reminding us that the bird evidence is good. The latter however isn't, and most health issues that have been proclaimed are not tightly demonstrated, in wild contrast with the sheer efficiency of its power against malaria.
Again, potential possible problems outwheighed actual real problems that were being solved with DDT, by the environmental groups involved.
Oh I don't know, maybe something like actually lowering the amount of sulphur in emissions? Stuff like http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3663/2007/acp-7-3663-2007.pdf this that wasn't too difficult to find?[/quote]
... you do not show how these emissions were lowered globally.
have no firsthand familiarity of Chinese situation. Maybe there's a source somewhere, telling how Chinese example means that acid rain was never a problem at all.
If these emissions never really lowered that much, then your whole "defense" turns ridiculous, innit?
Here, see the actual numbers for the trends till today, and yeah "that wasn't so difficult to find" you're absolutely right! (ZING)
[IMG=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H8J8dJU6P5Q/TYANbgRU8KI/AAAAAAAAAhE/bGkTdTgCEXI/s400/GloS.gif]
http://stochastictrend.blogspot.com/2011/03/global-trends-in-carbon-and-sulfur.html
Oh yes. That. Walked into a mine. Carter's warning of peak oil came after US oil production had hit it's peak, but before the large discoveries of oil reserves in 1980s. You may take even wikileaks with a pinch of salt, but even Saudies seemed conserned about the fact just a moment ago.
The entire problem is that 1) oil consumption increases all the time in global scale, 2) oil is a globally traded commodity, and 3) potential of new discoveries dimishes. 2 and 3 wouldn't be a problem if 1 didn't mean that nothing is done.
Do you want to see an actual graph of fossil energy yet to be extracted to see how silly this reasoning is? Here:
[IMG=http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-06-at-6.20.18-PM.png]
Where and when? I mean, you need to be a bit more precise. "The UN?"
Ahhh **** you'll just have to take my word on that.... or not.
Let's see. We have a fossil record saying that yes, species are going extinct fast. We have data of large amount of species disappearing in a very short timespan after human colonization of areas. We have estimations of biodiversity centers, AND we have estimations of the loss of these biodiversity centers. We can just look at tropical rainforests, take any assumption of the amount of species living there and calculate coldly the projected loss of diversity if the unerlying assumptions are not changed. The assumption that you can just remove habitat and not have an adverse effect on species numbers is frankly very weird - and that's the underlying assumption in these extinction rates.
Read the article I linked you in the last post, a series of posts which clearly illustrates the ridiculous maths involved in the "biodiversity" calculations that imply, among other things, a series of equations that were never intended to calculate the extinction rates whatsoever. It's pure demagogery and numerology. Making **** up.
Besides, your statement of "THEM!" then becomes weird. It's not like extinction event is a ideological assumption. There are hundreds of scientific articles about it. Maybe THEY are part of THEM as well?
Yeah. Considering that these "scientific" articles are almost all of them based upon a set of equations that really don't work well in there... yeah.
YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. Who are "they"? Where do "they" state these things?
Everyone involved. It's part of the environmentalist paradigm. Name me one environmentalist who actually endorses the global trade of food and I'll be amazed.
Oh really?
As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took that as meaning what you said. An obvious mistake, in retrospect.
Not a mistake if you do it right. Try to read what I write instead of what you skim it to be. Worries are not ideologies.
Since you speak of loonies and mentalists it is obvious that your problem with conservation and enviromentalism is not based on facts. Despite you stating that something is "unscientific rubbish", these kind of lines betray you. Scientific has nothing to do with it, because if it had, you could easily provide sources and constructive criticism - something you have absolutely failed to do in this thread.
That would make a ton of pages. Really. It would. Take global markets of food for instance. Environmentalists really believe that this is the work of satan, that it spends a lot of oil, enslaves poor people, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you really want me to prove this? Confront me, and I will.
Not an hypocrite, but an heretic. Check Lynas or Monbiot and the trashing they got into. Bjorn Lomborg was tossed into the garbage bin a decade ago, for he dared to question environmental myths. This is nothing new.
Yet they do exist and even have some weight in political discourse. How interesting. Maybe they aren't enviromentalists at all, then?
What weight do these lone voices have? None. They are constantly ignored if their narrative deviates from the politically correct one.
But anyways. You haven't been able to even name any of these horrendous enviromentalists you so staunchly oppose, even less to point out where they as some kind of collective espouse these kind of views.
It's a mob thing, more than a person thing.
-
Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JkzX5lLLXNE/TYANcrmcZRI/AAAAAAAAAhU/GxVp48Sij-M/s400/RegS.gif")
-
Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JkzX5lLLXNE/TYANcrmcZRI/AAAAAAAAAhU/GxVp48Sij-M/s400/RegS.gif")
Well that's all well and good, after you explain
1) just what does this have to do with your original statement "THEY lied about acid rain",
2) just how this does nullify anything I stated,
3) just what does this have to do with enviromental discussion of acid rain, and
4) just why do you think you can get away with this when it is obvious that acid rain, as an enviromental concern, was always a local and continental problem and had little to do with CHINA - an example YOU brought up and now so smugly present, thinking it proves anything.
Seriously. Your earlier post essentially stated that peer-reviewed journals are WRONG and this random blog post proves all of them wrong. I am right now looking at Nature (not Science, mind you) search results for extinction rate and trust me - they are fighting about it. This one article, you know, Fangliang and Huebbell.
Of course I could mention that you managed to regurgitate same old tired DDT bull**** without apparently even glancing at a Lancet article i reffed to earlier in this thread. You know, the one that addressed everything you said - except your outlandish claim that banning DDT caused more trouble than it solved, seeing how you didn't even say WHAT those problems are. Of course I wouldn't. Are you just making this **** up as you go and hope to switch topics once you get caught?
I could, just as well, note that you describe Silent Spring as "demonizing". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of modern ecology, toxicology, ecotoxicology and enviromental politics. Of course I won't, that would be just mean.
And let's not forget the fact that you ask me to take "The UN" as a good answer. This offends me. How dumb do you think I am? And I shouldn't even remind you that in your rant against enviromentalism you referred to "a very respected dude" but apparently forgot his name and couldn't even be bothered to google his name.
You know what? I did. Just now. It refers to Monbiot and Caldicott's exchange, where Caldicott makes all kinds of statements. Monbiot replies by asking for peer-reviewed literature. Caldicott is unable to provide. Gives a certain ironic ring to it, seeing how you, when asked for sources, have posted BLOG LINKS. Not even newspapers, BLOGS.
I could also mention that you have offered to prove your point! This is very important. I will eagerly await you to make your ton of posts to discredit enviromentalist movements. Of course, now, this would require definition of these groups, something you haven't been able to do in this very thread despite being asked to - repeatedly. It would, of course, force you to move from cherry-picked generalization to more concrete definition, so please, go ahead. I mean, your generalizations become tiresome when you cannot really say who said what and when.
Now you see this. You deny acidification as a problem. I happen to be relatively familiar with it's aspects in Northern Europe, especially when it comes to freshwaters. I could tell you about lack of buffer in naturally acidic waters. I could tell you about reproductionary problems it causes in fishes. I could tell you about acidification and heavy metal availability in acidic waters. I could tell you about problems acidification caused in Scandinavian waters in 1980s. You state that these problems are either nonexistant or that Someone Somewhere Lied.
I also happen to be relatively familiar with DDT and other organic pollutants. I can with great confidence state that I know at least something about estimating threat, animal testing procedures, the history of toxicology, risk assesment, sociological aspects of ecotoxicology, political decision-making. I can tell you about how bioremediation happens, how metabolic waste products might not be a good thing. I can tell you about problems organochlorines cause and the problems their ban has caused. You say that these things are either nonexistant or that Someone Somewhere Lied.
I also happen to be at least somewhat familiar with both the political and grassroots enviromentalism in where I come from. I am also familiar with ecological concepts of extinction, habitat loss and extinction debt. I study biology and ecotoxicolgy/hydrobiology. Where I hail from the Greenish movement is in the middle of large discussion of just what to do and nuclear power is one part of it. Therefore, with relatively great certainity and knowledge that I have at least cursory skills to prove my statement correct or at least cite to useful literature, I will now make my qualified statement:
You are full of **** and a bad debater.
-
Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JkzX5lLLXNE/TYANcrmcZRI/AAAAAAAAAhU/GxVp48Sij-M/s400/RegS.gif")
Well that's all well and good, after you explain
1) just what does this have to do with your original statement "THEY lied about acid rain",
2) just how this does nullify anything I stated,
3) just what does this have to do with enviromental discussion of acid rain, and
4) just why do you think you can get away with this when it is obvious that acid rain, as an enviromental concern, was always a local and continental problem and had little to do with CHINA - an example YOU brought up and now so smugly present, thinking it proves anything.
1) We are long past 2000, and acid rains didn't turn forests into deserts.
2) It doesn't nullify. It tames. You spoke of these issues as being "solved", and that's why the forecasts weren't "crazy", when the graphs tell a different story.
3) Acid rain should be fought. The moral premise isn't at issue here. I was making a case out of environmentalism hysteria.
4) So these acids are localized in the atmosphere? I may have assumed wrongly that they were more easily globalized.
[uote]Seriously. Your earlier post essentially stated that peer-reviewed journals are WRONG and this random blog post proves all of them wrong.[/quote]
No, it doesn't "prove", but it provides sufficient pause for thought. The equations do not make sense. In a way it reminds me of economics and its origins, with thermodynamic equations being copypasted into economical contexts with a lot of non sequiturs.
I am right now looking at Nature (not Science, mind you) search results for extinction rate and trust me - they are fighting about it. This one article, you know, Fangliang and Huebbell.
That's a good article coming in 2011, making some similar points to the blog I pointed you to. Perhaps they will end up counting these things better in the future. It doesn't mean that the previous generation didn't **** up with their numbers.
Of course I could mention that you managed to regurgitate same old tired DDT bull**** without apparently even glancing at a Lancet article i reffed to earlier in this thread. You know, the one that addressed everything you said - except your outlandish claim that banning DDT caused more trouble than it solved, seeing how you didn't even say WHAT those problems are. Of course I wouldn't. Are you just making this **** up as you go and hope to switch topics once you get caught?
Banning was bad. DDT is still useful, even if you should restrict its use. Outright banning is just the typical overreaction. Nuclear has problems? Ditch it altogether. Let's build solar instead, nevermind the sheer economic crazyness, nevermind the sheer technical crazyness (how do you exactly cope with intermittency of production?), nevermind the sheer pollution that the production of solar panels entails. Nevermind all of that. Let's just overreact instead to this relatively minor issue and get moving against the status quo, because that gives meaning to the youngsters lives, I guess.
I could, just as well, note that you describe Silent Spring as "demonizing". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of modern ecology, toxicology, ecotoxicology and enviromental politics. Of course I won't, that would be just mean.
What the hell? Let's be clear, I said that the book demonizes DDT. It was a statement of fact. I didn't even judge the book, which BTW also includes the statement that DDT *should be used, but not abused*. It was probably the sanest party involved, in pragmatic terms.
And let's not forget the fact that you ask me to take "The UN" as a good answer. This offends me. How dumb do you think I am? And I shouldn't even remind you that in your rant against enviromentalism you referred to "a very respected dude" but apparently forgot his name and couldn't even be bothered to google his name.
The first one is a tongue-in-cheek. I remember it, but I cannot find it. And of course I'm an anonymous from the internet, so you don't have to believe in me at all. The "very respected dude" was actually a woman.... Ahh yeah you found out about her:
You know what? I did. Just now. It refers to Monbiot and Caldicott's exchange, where Caldicott makes all kinds of statements. Monbiot replies by asking for peer-reviewed literature. Caldicott is unable to provide. Gives a certain ironic ring to it, seeing how you, when asked for sources, have posted BLOG LINKS. Not even newspapers, BLOGS.
I'm not a respectable environmentalist in charge of a movement in front of a TV camera. Sorry, but to compare both our lack of preparation as if they are morally equivalent is just silly.
I could also mention that you have offered to prove your point! This is very important. I will eagerly await you to make your ton of posts to discredit enviromentalist movements. Of course, now, this would require definition of these groups, something you haven't been able to do in this very thread despite being asked to - repeatedly. It would, of course, force you to move from cherry-picked generalization to more concrete definition, so please, go ahead. I mean, your generalizations become tiresome when you cannot really say who said what and when.
I have offered to prove a very specific point. But I am a sole man in this lone planet and this is not my specialty. I cannot be trolled to do the job I am not paid to do. I can, however, see. And what I see is mostly green grandstanding above unproven myths.
I have offered to prove the point that globalized food markets are environmentally better than "localized" food markets.
But you have to be sweet to me. I won't waste brain power to the garbage can.
Now you see this. You deny acidification as a problem.
NOWHERE did I say this. All these are real problems, real worries, that are transformed by sheer irrationality to untold heights so that you get attention to your own pet theories about how a specific environmental concern will melt the world to smithereens.
You are full of **** and a bad debater.
Ok, let me go cry in the corner now.
-
xkcd
I dont care if its half ad homimem. They're having a multisentence political discussion, on HLP. And they're actually supporting their arguments with graphs and stuff. Have at it Luis and Janos.
-
while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.
-
while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.
no, it really isn't, and if you're butthurt about a thread, you might as well make an effort to contribute instead of wasting a precious post in an inarticulate try at hiding your inability to express your thoughts (on better-for-serious-discussion forums, low content posts just get you an instant five-day ban)
peak posting is coming, we can't be wasteful
ed: it's like having a kid come running onto a debate floor to shout STOP FIGHTING; if you don't get the discussion, just stay out of it instead of ****ting up the thread
-
while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.
no, it really isn't, and if you're butthurt about a thread, you might as well make an effort to contribute instead of wasting a precious post in an inarticulate try at hiding your inability to express your thoughts (on better-for-serious-discussion forums, low content posts just get you an instant five-day ban)
peak posting is coming, we can't be wasteful
ed: it's like having a kid come running onto a debate floor to shout STOP FIGHTING; if you don't get the discussion, just stay out of it instead of ****ting up the thread
I'm not feeling anything for this thread, but I see you busting out the "I'm a troll lulz lulz I'm better than everyone lulz lulz lulz" it makes it hard to resist. I admit I should have brought out the dancing troll thing instead.
-
Next troll poster gets himself banned.
If Luis and Janos want to go at it, so be it.
-
If Luis and Janos want to go at it, so be it.
I've been gone for a week here, but Luis seems to be displaying the same old pattern of posting unsubstantiated BS in reply (with a hefty measure of arrogance and unfounded condescension thrown in to boot) and meandering away until he gets pinned down completely. It's getting tiresome to read, and giving some serious deja vu to Liberator's old GD participation. Deriding debate is bad; deriding Luis' particular form of debate isn't (not defending the troll posters here, just making an observation).
-
That's fine. I should point out that I'm not going to let anyone else get away with that sort of behaviour as long as Liberator did.
-
Don't worry, if I see that people don't like what I post here, I'll stop doing it ;).