Politics and the environment

Kikuichimonji

Kikuichimonji

It seems that there's a common perception that democrats care about the environment and republicans don't. I really don't know how this stereotype developed, because it's not really historically or presently accurate.

Probably the biggest historical example I can think of that go directly against this misconception are Richard Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson. Richard Nixon (Republican) started the Environmental Protection Agency, and the EPA continues to be governmental agency responsible for the nation's environmental policy. Nixon easily did more for the environment than Al Gore; the EPA has had dramatic environmental and political impact since its conception.

On the flip side of the coin, LBJ (Democrat) sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara.

Of course, not all Republican administrations have been environmentally minded, and not all Democratic administrations have been environmentally negligent. That isn't really the point. Environmentalism can't be assigned to either party and basing political affiliation on environmentalism would be a rather foolish move.

I recently saw this story on support for nuclear power in the US. This pretty much sums up the article:

environ.png


37% of polled democrats oppose construction of new nuclear power plants in the US, compared with 9% of polled republicans. That means more than a third of polled democrats either don't care about the environment or possess the IQ of dirt. And less than half of democrats support the creation of new nuclear power plants, compared with 85% of republicans.

Again, I'm not saying that republicans care more or that democrats care less about the issue, but it seems rather silly of democrats to claim to have a monopoly on environmentalism, and I facepalmed hard enough to give myself a minor concussion when a friend of mine told me that the only reason for her vote for Obama was "global warming." Can anyone explain to me how it came to be that democrats became regarded as environmental saints?
 
Environmentalism was fairly bipartisan during Nixon and Carter's terms, but Reagan was very pro-business and felt that environmental regulations stifled growth. This was the same way for George W. Bush (I'm not sure of Bush Sr's position). The fact that Al Gore was Bill Clinton's VP should tell you which side of the argument he was on.

Paradoxically, the opposition to nuclear plants is based on environmental grounds. The main issue is how to dispose of the nuclear waste - Republicans are generally in favor of using Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that's a very unpopular position in a key swing state (which, incidentally, got a boost because it held its primary early). Of course, there's also the possibility of a nuclear meltdown and such.

I think ultimately, environmentalists are going to have to come to terms with the fact that trade-offs are going to be necessary to fight global warming. Nuclear power has flaws, but it's the best way we have to prevent the building of more coal plants.
 
I am opposed to nuclear power.. but I can't see any other way out of the mess we've got ourselves into.. as nice as it would be to say 'renewable energy, yea!' we've not invested near enough in it in the past, so we're stuck with nuclear, which is the lesser of two evils.
 
Renewable energy (as a primary source of energy) is horribly inefficient, unless you want to reduce the global population by about 75% or more within about 20 years?

"Auschwitz Grand Reopening! All Races Accepted!"

Btw, just because you invest money in something doesn't mean it works. (See DC public schools). You can't blame the current state of alternate energy on "lack of investment", at least to say that that is the sole reason why it is not becoming more prominent.

I can't stand "environmentalism" in terms of the moralistic circle-jerk that is has become, though I'm definitely pro-not pouring toxic waste in your water

Austrian Economics adherent/Market Anarchist that I am, I think the market can definitely serve environmental needs - imo i don't think people would buy stuff from people who pour toxic waste in their water, etc for example, therefore, environmental destruction = lost profits = incentive towards environmental responsibility

As for Nuclear Power, the risk of meltdown is comparatively small (and to be honest, the real problem was that the plants were in inhabited areas; there are enough open spaces in America to safely provide nuclear power for a lot (though not the entire) of the country. Alternate energy sources could fill in some of the gaps, especially for localized areas, fossil fuels can fill in the gaps.
 
Also keep in mind that just because an energy source is renewable doesn't mean that it's better for the environment. Hetch hetchy dam is responsible for providing hydroelectric power but there are plenty of environmentalists who claim that damming the valley destroyed a lot of wildlife (they're definitely right on that one) and that removing the dam would be better for the local ecosystem (questionable, given that the wildlife currently residing around the dam has had 70 years to adapt to that environment.

Hydroelectric power disrupts river wildlife, wind farms can throw a wrench in the migratory patterns of birds, and creating the infrastructure for geothermal power can dramatically alter local ecosystems. Solar power sounds great until you realize that most people who utilize solar power are able to move out in to wilderness areas that they wouldn't be able to without an independant energy source (causing disruption where it wouldn't otherwise be possible), and if you're thinking of powering a nation on solar power, you've got to give serious thought to where you're going to place the panels. Covering Texas sounds like a good idea, until you ask the Texans and look at the cost of manufacturing the panels and installing them (along with all of the capacitors to store power for nighttime hours).

Nobody said nuclear power was harmless to the environment, but it's the only practical alternative to what we've got right now, and even if other methods were practical or economical (they aren't), you can't label them as environmentally friendly just because they don't produce waste. Powering an entire nation with wind, hydroelectric, or solar power would arguably be more detrimental to the environment than using nuclear power.
 
Another problem is that many (older) people remember the Three Mile Island incident, connect that to Chernobyl (both happened in roughly the same time period), and support for nuclear power goes down the shitter.

I think misinformation, especially to the older crowd, is the real problem with support for it (that and Democratic leaders don't pursue nuclear power enough). If we can re-brand it, and make the case that other, less stable powers shouldn't have them (Iran), then I think we can get this off the ground.

And while I support nuclear power, NIMBY isn't the only problem with it. Thermal pollution, through all the water reactors process, is a huge problem, and while that can be partially solved, it requires even more money.
 
I agree that though Chernobyl was indeed disasterous, it was exaggerated beyond belief. 56 people died in Chernobyl, and that's pretty close to the number of people who die in car accidents every day in the US. What is really saddening is how grossly innacurate the media reports were; the New York times at one point estimated the death toll at 15-30,000. And looking at deaths due to radiation, estimates were between half a million and 3.5 million, when in reality there were fewer than 4,000 delayed deaths as a result of radiation from Chernobyl. Here's a chart to give you some visual perspective on that. (As a side note, the media sources who relayed this misinformation following the incident are some of the same sources now claiming that global climate catastrophy is imminent and that the ice caps will be completely melted by 2050.)
 
I think it's more than the amount of deaths, but that the state is killing people. People kill people all the time, whether or not they mean to. We, as a society, accept that; we use cars all the time though we know people die from their usage. We drink, knowing it can kill us. But, giving the state a direct shot, so to speak, at killing people is just far too scary.

The fact is that Chernobyl couldn't actually happen in America (lead medium vs water medium, for example) and I don't the average citizen is aware of that. That's part of the misinformation (along with the exaggeration that you cite) that needs to be corrected if nuclear power can ever be truly utilized.
 
Another environmental issue is uranium mining.

Of course if your other options are coal or oil that isnt really a big deal, but it is worth considering. The other thing is this way you are exporting the effect to Australia or Africa, but you might give a damn.

Also what if you store all your waste until you have sold all your product and then dump it into the ocean.

Have a nice day.
 
Well, even accepting that premise, I would have no problem with people filing a class-action lawsuit against the company for health damages, economic damages (killing all the fish), and so forth.

Thus, it wouldn't pay even if you did that.
 
I've lived a couple hours from TMI for most of my life and I don't see what the big deal is. The amount of misinformation about nuclear power is absurd.
 
Surgo said:
I've lived a couple hours from TMI for most of my life and I don't see what the big deal is. The amount of misinformation about nuclear power is absurd.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. The new nuclear power plants are extremely safe. The only problem is figuring out what to do with the waste.

It disturbs me a bit that McCain has a much better grasp on the whole energy thing than Obama does. (Well, besides the offshore drilling nonsense -- I'm talking about how he wants to stop ethanol subsidies.) Like OP said, he's a Republican, so he's wrong on the environment, right? Right??
The world as we know it has imploded.
 
Kikuichimonji said:
(As a side note, the media sources who relayed this misinformation following the incident are some of the same sources now claiming that global climate catastrophy is imminent and that the ice caps will be completely melted by 2050.)
Click to expand...

I dont believe this. Ive read many catastrophic scenarios about global warming and none of them were this drastic. But apparently you can source this and I would love you to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top