Skip to main content

View Diary: "They lied to the American people": halting Tar Sands Texas style (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In my opinion, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, glorificus, ColoTim

    nuclear is part of the answer to climate change. It's not that I'm not aware of the risks (though they are less with smaller reactors under development). It's that the climate change problem is so much worse in scale and magnitude. Even if there is an optimal energy plan that doesn't include any nuclear to replace coal baseload energy, as a political strategy it is not a bad idea to have to nuclear lobby on your side.

    Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

    by play jurist on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think we've seen (0+ / 0-)

      in recent history a very good argument against the use of nuclear.

      But he isn't just supportive of nuclear energy, he also supports the oil industry, drilling, liquid coal.

      This is quintessential Obama.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:10:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Events aren't arguments. (0+ / 0-)

        Suitably located small reactors have considerably lower risk of a Fukushima type event. I think that the risks associated with nuclear are real, but they are local and containable. However, they are dramatic in a way that captures the imagination and invokes an emotional response. In particular, the specter of radiation incites bodily feelings of disgust and contamination. Nevertheless, although far less gutturally motivating the risks associated with climate change include grave human consequences on a massive, global scale. It's the consequentialist point of view that brings me around to the conclusion that adopting more nuclear, despite the risks, is worth offsetting carbon pollution.

        I agree that Obama has been a disappointment. However, I think we have been equally disappointing to ourselves. We need to stop hoping for change to come down from above and start demanding it on the ground. I'm sort of tiring of complaining and hearing complaints about what politicians are or are not doing within a system that allows only for very slow reform processes. What needs to happen is for activists to create the social conditions that force a the issue to the forefront of political consciousness and confrontation. This is why Blockade is the most important social movement of our time. It is our generation's revolution/abolition/suffrage/civil rights movement. In all of those cases we didn't have a politician just do the right thing of their own accord. We had popular movements force the issue. It's time to do that on climate change. We need thousands blockading pipelines. It is what's necessary.

        Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

        by play jurist on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:58:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site