http://conservativebootcamp.com/?p=118
*
Word comes to us from Greenpeace spokesperson Bridget Woodman that
“Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident.”
There Could Be Problems
There Could Be Problems
*
http://conservativebootcamp.com/?p=118
*
http://conservativebootcamp.com/?p=118
*
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If you think they don't like nuclear, wait till you talk to them about wind turbines, or even planting trees and your find they are almost as anti those too..
The above statement strikes me as not something to worry about, so nuclear power has those problems.
Every solution has its selection of problems, doesn't mean choosing to go that route is a choice you cannot decdie to make.
I'd suggest probably the best thing is to invite the person here to debate with us in this forum so that the situation can be somewhat defused.
I have the same argument when talking about building concrete homes, yes its CO2 producing making the stuff, but long term its going to save you from having to rebuild the place every time there is a hurricane, it doesn't burn down like a wooden building, your not chopping down some ancient forest in someone elses backyard to supply materials, sound pollution is reduced.
So yes, admit there are issues and problems and then speak about the benefits outwaying those.
The above statement strikes me as not something to worry about, so nuclear power has those problems.
Every solution has its selection of problems, doesn't mean choosing to go that route is a choice you cannot decdie to make.
I'd suggest probably the best thing is to invite the person here to debate with us in this forum so that the situation can be somewhat defused.
I have the same argument when talking about building concrete homes, yes its CO2 producing making the stuff, but long term its going to save you from having to rebuild the place every time there is a hurricane, it doesn't burn down like a wooden building, your not chopping down some ancient forest in someone elses backyard to supply materials, sound pollution is reduced.
So yes, admit there are issues and problems and then speak about the benefits outwaying those.
I have seen that too. I believe their objection is to fusion that produces a lot of neutrons and thus leaves some sort of waste that must be buried out in the American west or shipped to poorer neighborhoods. I wonder what their reaction to a BFR would be. My bet, at first it would be too good to be true, but after that? Hmmm…that could get interesting.
I think most Greenpeace types (>>98%) would welcome it. However, I think there would be a few (there is always a few in every crowd) who would get very very angry. Ah! Now that would make the whole enterprise perfect.
I am rather green myself, but to see some of these self righteous, puritanical, whack jobs talk, is embarrassing. To see something like a BFR working as we all hope, and then getting to watch them rage helplessly would be…OH! I cannot even begin.
I think most Greenpeace types (>>98%) would welcome it. However, I think there would be a few (there is always a few in every crowd) who would get very very angry. Ah! Now that would make the whole enterprise perfect.
I am rather green myself, but to see some of these self righteous, puritanical, whack jobs talk, is embarrassing. To see something like a BFR working as we all hope, and then getting to watch them rage helplessly would be…OH! I cannot even begin.
> I think most Greenpeace types (>>98%) would welcome it
Agreed.
The problem is, the 2% that disagree are the most vocal, make the most noise and everyone thinks they speak for the majority.
I tend to listen to the majority view and go out of my way to put their voices forward when others do not, it doesn't make me popular mind you
> I am rather green myself
Likewise.
(But what do you do when your talking with another green and telling them you want to plant trees on some desolate hillside to provide a better environment for everyone, to be told I'd be destroying some eco-system thats existed for hundreds or thousands of years since we last chopped down the trees there and how evil that is..)
I do often manage to confuse them with some arguments, like the ones that are animal friendly, sure I think animals should have rights too, but we are also animals, so doesn't that mean we have the same rights to live in the wilderness too...
As for professional greens, paid for by donated money, for which they often paid very well, they are supringly not keen to spend the money on doing anything green than just talking about it, and refuse to discuss their own 4x4 ownership/etc..
But most can be reasoned with, if you keep at it long enough
I tend to see the answer is communication, get to know each other and the facts, admit what the facts are, the costs, not just finanical of decisions and not be afraid to do something and live with the consquences of your actions. Otherwise we'd all just sit around saying doing anything is bad and never making the world better for people..
Agreed.
The problem is, the 2% that disagree are the most vocal, make the most noise and everyone thinks they speak for the majority.
I tend to listen to the majority view and go out of my way to put their voices forward when others do not, it doesn't make me popular mind you
> I am rather green myself
Likewise.
(But what do you do when your talking with another green and telling them you want to plant trees on some desolate hillside to provide a better environment for everyone, to be told I'd be destroying some eco-system thats existed for hundreds or thousands of years since we last chopped down the trees there and how evil that is..)
I do often manage to confuse them with some arguments, like the ones that are animal friendly, sure I think animals should have rights too, but we are also animals, so doesn't that mean we have the same rights to live in the wilderness too...
As for professional greens, paid for by donated money, for which they often paid very well, they are supringly not keen to spend the money on doing anything green than just talking about it, and refuse to discuss their own 4x4 ownership/etc..
But most can be reasoned with, if you keep at it long enough
I tend to see the answer is communication, get to know each other and the facts, admit what the facts are, the costs, not just finanical of decisions and not be afraid to do something and live with the consquences of your actions. Otherwise we'd all just sit around saying doing anything is bad and never making the world better for people..
Greenpeace
I think most Greenpeace types(>>98%) hold their positions on economics and the environment for entirely emotional reasons and trying to attribute rationality to them is a problem. Arguments based in fact and logic aren't going to do a thing to change their minds.I think most Greenpeace types (>>98%) would welcome it.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism,
The timing on this fits with my own personal experiences. I started college in 1981, and was a bit of a "green" at the time (I climbed mountains and did other outdoor sports, so appreciated the outdoors). I knew a lot of boomers in our climbing group who were the kind of greens that were prevalent in the 70's. Generally I agreed with them. I think that the environmental movement was vitally needed in the 70's in order to correct many of the problems we had in the 60's and before. Also, many of the boomers that comprised it were people I enjoyed hanging with.
The big sea-change was the mid 80's (about the time I graduated from college). The boomers who founded and were active in these movements had moved on to careers, gotten married, and had kids and a home life. They no longer had the time or inclination for political activism. So, they had largely dropped out of the green movement by 1985. They were replaced by hard-left people largely driven by an emotive Reagan hatred. Many of these new people were highly emotional and, in my opinion,
borderline mentally ill. Some of them were obviously mentally ill. I found them to be quite unpleasant to be around. Also, very few of them were into outdoor sports and actually experienced nature first hand. It was the unpleasant nature of these people that has driven many reasonable people out of the green movement subsequent to the mid 80's.
The timing on this fits with my own personal experiences. I started college in 1981, and was a bit of a "green" at the time (I climbed mountains and did other outdoor sports, so appreciated the outdoors). I knew a lot of boomers in our climbing group who were the kind of greens that were prevalent in the 70's. Generally I agreed with them. I think that the environmental movement was vitally needed in the 70's in order to correct many of the problems we had in the 60's and before. Also, many of the boomers that comprised it were people I enjoyed hanging with.
The big sea-change was the mid 80's (about the time I graduated from college). The boomers who founded and were active in these movements had moved on to careers, gotten married, and had kids and a home life. They no longer had the time or inclination for political activism. So, they had largely dropped out of the green movement by 1985. They were replaced by hard-left people largely driven by an emotive Reagan hatred. Many of these new people were highly emotional and, in my opinion,
borderline mentally ill. Some of them were obviously mentally ill. I found them to be quite unpleasant to be around. Also, very few of them were into outdoor sports and actually experienced nature first hand. It was the unpleasant nature of these people that has driven many reasonable people out of the green movement subsequent to the mid 80's.
We need the environment movement but they are offended to cranky and technophobic.
In Sweden the Greenpeace supported a plant for destruction of chemical waste. The waste must go some there and they realised this was the best solution.
But the local NIMBY environmentalist wanted to stop the plant. “Radical” environmentalists have as solution on the waste problem the idea to stop the chemical industry.
A success from BFR or similar concept may affect the environmentalists’ positive in long run. In the begging it divide them but then the crackpots have gone there way it will strength the reasonable part.
In beginning they will fight it because it’s “nuclear”. They must have time to understand the new technology. In this case it must be our pedagogical mission to explain the BFR and how its differ from fission and tokamak.
In Sweden the Greenpeace supported a plant for destruction of chemical waste. The waste must go some there and they realised this was the best solution.
But the local NIMBY environmentalist wanted to stop the plant. “Radical” environmentalists have as solution on the waste problem the idea to stop the chemical industry.
A success from BFR or similar concept may affect the environmentalists’ positive in long run. In the begging it divide them but then the crackpots have gone there way it will strength the reasonable part.
In beginning they will fight it because it’s “nuclear”. They must have time to understand the new technology. In this case it must be our pedagogical mission to explain the BFR and how its differ from fission and tokamak.
mark my words
I think your quote here is right on the money. Mark my words, the exact same thing is about to rise again if you swap in Bush for Reagan.They were replaced by hard-left people largely driven by an emotive Reagan hatred. Many of these new people were highly emotional and, in my opinion,borderline mentally ill.
Anyone you meet that thinks Bush is worse than Kofi Annan is well on that road.