discussion Putin: Europe has no alternative to Russia

[Bears01]

19 minutes ago, getback said:

nuclear is literally one of the cleanest energy sources    when it's done right - like most of the cases, the impact it has on the environment is the lowest out of all the sources  but I guess out residential CCP shill prefers other alternatives that literally destroy or permanently alternative the environment like when China builds Three Gorges Dam
 

[Horizon Flame]

5 hours ago, ZIVERT said:

There are plenty of alternatives, they just should have already been investing in them. It’s why there are countries that are offering to step in and replace Russia to provide Europe with energy.

[Communion]

2 hours ago, getback said:

 but I guess out residential CCP shill 
 

 

 

 

 

Um, I don't think the idea that nuclear energy is favored by the rich and privileged who ignore that nuclear waste is disproportionately likely to harm poor people is an idea that originates with uhhh...."the Chinese" (???). Aren't you Canadian, sis? It's a pretty big blindspot to not be aware of how indigenous and first nation people feel largely about nuclear. 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Communion

[getback]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

Um, I don't think the idea that nuclear energy is favored by the rich and privileged who ignore that nuclear waste is disproportionately likely to harm poor people is an idea that originates with uhhh...."the Chinese" (???). Aren't you Canadian, sis? It's a pretty big blindspot to not be aware of how indigenous and first nation people feel largely about nuclear. 

the CCP training is paying off, you should run a masterclass in trying to divert the conversation to something irrelevant 

oh how "nuclear energy is a clean energy and has the least impact on the environment" becomes "oh look how Canada treats indigenous people"  

 

[Communion]

2 hours ago, getback said:

"oh look how Canada treats indigenous people"

 

Yeah, in the context of nuclear energy, because nuclear energy is still largely objectively unsafe due to the reality that "just store it underground for 1000 years" isn't actually an answer, as evidence by criticisms nuclear projects get by various people? I'm confused what China has to do with nuclear, let alone because you say they're anti and another user says theyre pro and I have no clue myself. Did you just think you could yell at someone with an incoherent ad hominem without understanding why nuclear energy is criticized in the ways it is? 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Communion

[Bears01]

16 minutes ago, Communion said:

Yeah, in the context of nuclear energy, because nuclear energy is still largely objectively unsafe due to the reality that "just store it underground for 1000 years" isn't actually an answer, as evidence by criticisms nuclear projects get by various people? I'm confused what China has to do with nuclear, let alone because you say they're anti and another user says theyre pro and I have no clue myself. Did you just think you could yell at someone with an incoherent ad hominem without understanding why nuclear energy is criticized in the ways it is? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/nuclear-energy-must-be-part-of-the-climate-change-solution-mit-study-suggests/amp
 

Actual professional experts literally disagree with you. And if you’re gonna go after Canada, let’s start with the authoritarian regime you stan and are paid off from 

[frenchyisback]

Has he sent Merkel & Schroeder their commission check yet?

[Communion]

19 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Actual professional experts literally disagree

"Indigenous people can't be professional experts" .... OH? 

 

Sis, I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand what you're even trying to argue. 

"Come for Canada" - who's "coming for" Canada? Discussions over nuclear waste within Canada were brought up to show how much of the developed world is already pretty negative on nuclear energy, which only needed to be said cause I guess some people think uhh China is (or isn't? idk) anti/pro nuclear energy? So weird too given no one even mentioned China. Trudeau even excluded nuclear energy from the Canadian government's Green Bonds program. 

 

I mean, if you want to fight about nuclear energy, you can go yell at Justin Trudeau or European leaders or something. I'm just echoing a pretty common and largely held view amongst much of climate change thinkers - nuclear energy is too damaged by too dangerous of a past to ever be our 'least evil' option. You'll never actually be able to convince most people that nuclear energy is 100% safe with no risk. Which is why it's largely libertarians and people of a certain... alignment~ who are the only ones who really, really defend it online. 

 

And like no offense to libertarians, but sis, you're really mad over a fairly common view.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Communion

[Bears01]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

"Indigenous people can't be professional experts" .... OH? 

 

Sis, I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand what you're even trying to argue. 

"Come for Canada" - who's "coming for" Canada? Discussions over nuclear waste within Canada were brought up to show how much of the developed world is already pretty negative on nuclear energy, which only needed to be said cause I guess some people think uhh China is (or isn't? idk) anti/pro nuclear energy? So weird too given no one even mentioned China. Trudeau even excluded nuclear energy from the Canadian government's Green Bonds program. 

 

I mean, if you want to fight about nuclear energy, you can go yell at Justin Trudeau or European leaders or something. I'm just echoing a pretty common and largely held view amongst much of climate change thinkers - nuclear energy is too damaged by too dangerous of a past to ever be our 'least evil' option. You'll never actually be able to convince most people that nuclear energy is 100% safe with no risk. Which is why it's largely libertarians and people of a certain... alignment~ who are the only ones who really, really defend it online. 

 

And like no offense to libertarians, but sis, you're really mad over a fairly common view.

Me showing you an article where scientists from MIT are saying that Nuclear Energy will be critical in fighting Climate Change somehow gets deflected to….Libertarians? You are the deflection GOAT, I will give you that 

[Communion]

15 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Me showing you an article where scientists from MIT 

Deferring to perceived experts - while blatantly ignoring the plethora of scientific studies that say the exact opposite and show that there are no actual substantial storage plans or presently-existing technology to make 'just bury in the ground for 400 years lol' to work - via an article that talks about the costs of energy production to downplay and erase the safety risks of nuclear waste is, in itself, deflection. 

 

Let alone that you quoted me to... uh... talk about China? I'm sorry, but this is just... deeply unserious. 

 

It's literally not deflection to - in addition showing why you're wrong - point out concern over how your rhetoric that the commonly-held view amongst progressives that "renewables > nuclear" is "China shilling" is like a Republican talking about AOC and the Green New Deal, who again are both pretty clear on the dangers of nuclear. Bernie Sanders literally ran on a nuclear energy moratorium in both 2016 and 2020. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Communion

[frenchyisback]

5 hours ago, getback said:

the CCP training is paying off, you should run a masterclass in trying to divert the conversation to something irrelevant 

oh how "nuclear energy is a clean energy and has the least impact on the environment" becomes "oh look how Canada treats indigenous people"  

 

 

Master of manufacturing fake outrage.

and each time you catch him, he just throws a brand new essay with a brand new shining object to complain about.

 

Anyway, back on topic, Putin better enjoy the next few months cause those are the last months he’ll get that sweet €uro from Energy sales.

Edited April 16, 2022 by frenchyisback

[Cloudy]

I have to say there are many countries that opose to nuclear energy. My own country in Europe is completely against it and it's not even up to debate, I am also against it. There much more cleaner and efficient ways of getting energy, the problem is countries have been complacent and didn't want to invest the resources and time into it until now that oil is running out and the climate is almost fucked up

[Communion]

41 minutes ago, Cloudy said:

I have to say there are many countries that opose to nuclear energy. My own country in Europe is completely against it and it's not even up to debate, I am also against it. There much more cleaner and efficient ways of getting energy, the problem is countries have been complacent and didn't want to invest the resources and time into it until now that oil is running out and the climate is almost fucked up

Thank you

 

In fact, the MIT study linked is largely about the cost of energy production and uses *current* global investments into energy alternatives to make the claim that nuclear energy might be necessary, but such a claim cites the usage of current nuclear power plants, ignroing that building new plants are also extremely expensive and take decades in itself. Yes, billions more must be invested into renewables, but that's the price of life vs death.

 

--

 

I only take issue with the random attacks seen across the thread because they're attacks. Saying something like "while I understand the concerns of safety with nuclear energy, I do think there needs to be discussions had about our goals and where nuclear energy may need to fit in there if we want to hit deadlines" is a respectful exchange.

 

Instead, those who are so pro-nuclear yet insecure about its drawbacks that they frame those who prefer renewables as some kind of political fringe are acting in bad faith, given support for renewables is the progressive mainstrean.

 

Ironically, those who are so pro-nuclear while not acknowledging its pitfalls have gone on to demonize renewables to the point that Marine Le Pen is quite literally running on banning solar and wind energy.

 

Look at what kinds of movements attract what kinds of people:

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Communion

[Raptus]

On 4/16/2022 at 1:09 AM, Communion said:

Yeah, in the context of nuclear energy, because nuclear energy is still largely objectively unsafe due to the reality that "just store it underground for 1000 years" isn't actually an answer, as evidence by criticisms nuclear projects get by various people? I'm confused what China has to do with nuclear, let alone because you say they're anti and another user says theyre pro and I have no clue myself. Did you just think you could yell at someone with an incoherent ad hominem without understanding why nuclear energy is criticized in the ways it is? 

You re so funny...in a bad way