The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Greenpeace are at odds on nuclear energy.

[redqueen]

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2019, 10:57 PM - Edit history (2)

The Green New Deal (GND), as I understand it, calls for doing away with nuclear energy. This is more in line with Greenpeace than the IPCC, which recommends nuclear energy as a low carbon alternative to coal.

We won't be able to provide enough power with renewables for some time, the argument goes, so we should shift to nuclear as we transition to renewables.

So my question is this - a lot of people are backing candidates who support the GND - is it that people trust Greenpeace's anti-nuke stance despite the examples demonstrated by France and Germany? Or is it that they aren't familiar with those situations?


Edit - added descriptions for initializations - also it turns out that AOC later said there is a possibility that there's a place for nuclear energy in the Green New Deal. So I guess maybe Greenpeace will be downgrading their ratings of some candidates' climate change plans.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. Nuclear is the only option, really.

It's the only alternative energy source that can provide the output we need.

I wasn't aware the GND called for the discontinuation of nuclear power, but to be totally honest it doesn't surprise me. Nuclear is scary, and it requires a shitload of oversight that many people simply don't trust the government in its current state to provide.

[mr_lebowski]

2. +1 agree absolutely (nt)

[redqueen]

3. Well - earlier versions called to eliminate it.

It's the only way to get your plan rated highly by Greenpeace, which seems to be a litmus test for many.

I just checked and now it seems there is some wiggle room being introduced. I wonder if any candidates will be asked about this change.


Anyway, we can't afford not to risk it.

We are already far too late in addressing this.

[redqueen]

4. Well.. I think it's an important issue

so I'm indulging in one self kick.

Surprised at the lack of concern over this.

[Blue_true]

5. Maybe you abbreviated too much.

I finally figured out what GND meant after a couple of minutes. I know about Greenpeace. I have no idea what the IPCC is. When faced with abbreviations that they don't understand, most people move on without posting, which is what I almost did.

[redqueen]

6. Ooh good point - I'll spell those out

Thanks!

[boomer_wv]

7. We have to...

get behind nuclear energy, as a party. It is the biggest weakness in our clean energy argument, that we don't support nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

There are arguments against nuclear, namely the initial time and capital required to build a reactor. However, safety is not a real argument. Nuclear energy is such a better option, it isn't debatable. Conservatives claim to be for it, so it's actually something that could happen.

[redqueen]

8. I think it definitely weakens our position as being concerned about climate change

if we are not pushing candidates to adopt plans that are simply common sense.

Greenpeace's approval should not be held as an indicator of anything but ideological blinders.