[Luis Dias]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Mobius]

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.

[Mort]

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

[Luis Dias]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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...

[The E]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Grizzly]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[The E]

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.

[IceFire]

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...

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

...five solutions, and almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

[StarSlayer]

[Grizzly]

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...

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[The E]

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".

[Luis Dias]

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?