We either need to get rid of the 2 party system stranglehold, or breakdown the expectation of EXTREME loyalty to party over country. Maybe there needs to a clause for the allowance of secret ballots when a stalemate is reached on an issue? Maybe we have a system where each person gets 3 votes to spread on an issue how they choose so they can give all 3 votes to yes, or 2 to yes and 1 to no. IDK. Im a fan of outside the box thinking and believe that its is naive to think that a bunch of dudes 300 years ago created a system of governemnt that should not evolve or advance as people find loopholes to exploit. The bones of our governing system are great, but i think we should be more open to adapting procedure to fit the times and counter politicians/parties exploiting loopholes.
How, in the name of sweet baby jesus, did we get to a place where this is a bipartisan issue where both sides basically agree its not important. It is literally the most fundamental principle of finance. fuck.
The Patriot Party could perhaps make that happen. We could then have left, right and crazy.
What? An agenda of genocide and conquest?
I thought for many years, it (debt) would be the issue that sinks the US.
Did not consider ideological rancor to be divisive enough in this modern bread and circuses era.
Not so sure on this one anymore.
You read my posts. I’m not one to claim one is a nazi or Hitler, out of a desire to describe a superlative for being odious.
I am merely using that in the same way that one would reference Mancurian candidate or Trojan horse for sneaking in under a veil of darkness.
Edit there are some on the left calling for those thing against their political opponents
Could you care to elaborate on the “ridiculously filled with propaganda” part?
But this is the crux of the issue. If you’re not concerned with EO’s and ramming through legislation except when Dems are in power then you aren’t actually concerned about those things. You simply enjoy them when used by one side and not the other.
I’m not here to say Dems aren’t also hypocrites and I believe with digging I have some posts talking about Dems being against stuff during GWB and being cool with the same thing during Obama. It also goes back to the expected norms discussion. When the GOP was fine blocking Merrick Garland with a year left in Obama’s presidency they set a new precedent and violated an expected (at least historically) norm. Turning around and getting another one in once RGB died isn’t really a big deal to me. It’s another round of hypocrisy. But I also don’t want Republicans crying when Democrats do the exact same thing the next time they have the chance to do it. And they will.
Our issue is that people expect and are generally cool with getting things done by any means necessary when they agree with the people doing them. I’m by no means happy about EO’s (as my original post stated) nor am I about “rammed through” legislation. At the same time if a side (either) is determined not to have actual discussions to craft legislation together it’s the obvious and expected path.
The national debt you brought up is going to be talked about by the GOP throughout the Biden administration. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Yet they ran a candidate who openly said while running he didn’t care about it and then ran it up with zero regard for it for four years. So we know the GOP doesn’t care about the debt when they have power. They do when they don’t.
Until people, leaders, and parties are consistent enough to care about certain things they show faux disdain for when it’s something they don’t like we’re pretty much stuck here. I don’t have a problem saying I lean left on many issues but I do think a lot of my history on here is talking about the hypocrisy of our leaders and political parties. And ourselves as citizens. I’m by no means immune I know I’ve defended stuff before and then criticized things that were very similar on here. It’s tough.
First, that is literally the Nuclear Energy Industry’s website and is so obviously pro-nuclear - as it should be for its purpose. Again, its like going to PhillipMorris or ExxonMobile for facts about tabacco and oil.
Then I got to the first “myth” they claim to disprove that Nuclear energy still has no solution to the waste problem and saw this: The safe, environmentally-sound disposal of HLW is technologically proven, with international scientific consensus on deep geological repositories. Such projects are well advanced in some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, France, and the USA.
Bullshit. We have no fucking idea. We only know what has worked for around 60 years. We have no idea how it will hold up in 100 years, 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 years (200,000 being the time for the worst stuff to decay to safeish levels). Some of the technology that was planned to be used at the Finland site, like lead coffiins and concrete encased boron cylinders were found to be cracked and leaking elsewhere. Additionally, seismically stable bedrock depositories are great… right now. How bout when you add 2 miles of ice on top of the finland repository as will likely happen 3-4 times over the timespan of radioactivity there. tunnels collapse, containment vessels break, water leaches in,etc. climate change and its effects will likely massively alter the way these repositories look in thousands of years, etc. The timescales involved are so great that the dangers and risks simply cannout be accounted for right now. Ill add one more thing to say that i know of a handful of lawsuits and settled cases regarding nuclear facilities in the US (which im not supposed to know about) that prove to me they are far more dangerous than the nuclear industry and its media relations would like you to believe.
Im not a greenpeace supporting, nuclear energy hater. I think they are better than coal power plants for example. I just dont think nuclear should be prioritized over the development of truly green energy sources, and i will push back against the false assertion that there is scientific consensus that nuclear waste disposal is safe and environmentally sound. And i will also point out when the official website of the nuclear energy industry is used to assert the safety of nuclear energy.
Well, if we’re prioritizing energy sources according to the carbon footprint…
In addition, the graph doesn’t account that wind power has to be backed by “dirty” energy sources - usually gas turbines - to account for the wind energy output volatility.
I read this yesterday I think. A bit difficult to combat pollution when bad actor China doesn’t care.
No argument there. The biggest polluters are China, Russia, India, US, and a couple others I’m forgetting. Everyone has to be onboard.
But then that’s also no reason to think that we shouldn’t lead the globe on clean energy like we do in other areas. So the global emission scale may not move enough, but that’s also no reason to justify doing nothing about ourselves. You can also make a national security argument that green energy is likely to be more independent and therefore less of a natsec risk.
I don’t like crazy leftist commies. But I DO like clean air and pristine wilderness to show future generations. We’re in control of our corner of the globe, we might as well protect it.
Your graph shows the way things were in the past, not the way things are, nor how they will be in 5, 10, 25, 50 years. Especially with how quickly green energy tech is advancing compared to the other energy sources.
Do you not think that we will be able to improve the efficiency and carbon footprint of how we harvest, store, and distribute energy from green sources in the coming years? I do. I think great strides are already being made, and will hopefully gain momentum as investors see the increased profitability and viability of green tech.
To play devil’s advocate, more federal money incentives are available for alt. energy sources than for nuclear energy research. I think with increased incentives a lot of additional progress could have been made in nuclear energy, including waste removal.
There are recycling options for certain used fuels. Not anywhere near the entirety but they do exist .
No disagreement here.
Amazingly, it is difficult to find even govt numbers more current than 6 years old. Maybe duckduckgo just too limited. I did find some US Energy Information Administration (appears to be a think tank but has .gov link) showing drop from high water point in 2007 of 6BB tons of CO2 to 5BB in 2019. About 10% increase in population for that period.
I am for greener society myself. But building mc mansions, driving 13mpg vehicles, and frigging light pollution grrr. Nat gas conversion as a bridge, while developing renewable storage, is a realistic start to me. Or harnessing state and federal capitols for their hot air production.
Hey now, you can’t just power the globe for free, the geopolitical issues that will cause are immeasurable.
As long as we don’t weaken our economy to where we aren’t competitive.
Joint report from the Dutch and Czech government. Key findings:
-
Solar/wind require 148x - 536x more land than nuclear
-
Solar/wind cost 4x more than nuclear
-
100% electricity from solar/wind would require area 1.8x larger than all of Netherlands
Perhaps less of an issue in the states, given the vast tracts of land that could be utilised, but this is clearly a non-starter at present for any developed country that isn’t also a continent.
And don’t also commit a serious own goal by removing domestic power reduction and ending up relying on energy from geopolitical foes such as Russia, Qatar etc.
Trump’s energy policy was miles better than what I am seeing so far from Biden’s admin.
After my question a couple of weeks back about dropping it into a volcano, l have been reading some. Since bombarding the fuel with neutrons (iirc) in the pursuit of changing it to more stable material is dicey, reusing it or deep earth storage look more attractive to the reseachers.
Odd how we can can do a Manhattan Project to create nuclear, but can’t do another to either dispose of it or wring out more energy through different processing.
But hey - the brightest minds have figured complex financial schemes to use the same collateral over and over & l have a vast selection of emojis for my various communication devices.