Fracking

Let's All Sit in the Dark: No Energy Source is Good Enough

|

Enough said.

Provoked by activist reactions to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, RealClearScience editor Alex Berezow has a nice piece summarizing the numberless discontents that environmentalists have with any plausible source of large-scale energy: 

It was only a matter of time before environmentalists would point toward Japan, say, "We told you so," and then declare a moral victory for anti-nuclear activism.  Merely for the sake of argument, let's pretend they are right.

Eliminating nuclear power might be a nice experiment.  But there is one big problem:  Environmentalists are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives, as well.

Oil? Spills and carbon emissions. Coal? Mountaintop removal and carbon emissions. Natural gas? Fracking and carbon emissions. Hydro? Strangling wild rivers and methane emissions. Wind? OK, but not in scenic areas like off Cape Cod or on mountain ridges in West Virginia and don't kill any birds. Solar? OK, but not in fragile deserts where it destroys Native American holy sites. Wind & Solar? Certainly don't want any unsightly high-voltage power lines criss-crossing the countryside. 

Berezow's whole article is well worth reading. 

Disclosure: I am happy to say that RealClearScience occasionally includes some of my articles. 

NEXT: Reason.tv: Drug Raids Go Hollywood as Obama Admin Breaks Promise (Again)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s because environmentalist have no souls. And they want humanity to be wiped off the face of the earth.

    1. Where do you people get such lunatic nonsense?

      1. Even if you can find an “environmentalist” who seems to be saying something like that under an honest reading (i.e., wanting to see less population does not mean via genocide but through decisions to have less kids), you still would be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization to say such nonsense.

        1. Certainly not all environmentalists have all the objections listed above, but when you account for all the noise generated amongst the nimby’s, the din makes it seem that way.

          Not that it will make one whit of difference when the lights actually do go off on broadway. Then we’d throw the environmentalist on the fire to keep warm if we had to.

        2. (i.e., wanting to see less population does not mean via genocide but through decisions to have less kids)

          1. Agreed about the genocide hyperbola.
          2. The decision to have less kids thought is a bit more problematic. Whose decision to have less kids are we talking about? The individual couple or the government’s decision are not the same thing.

        3. The ending of the human epoch on Earth,” writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, “would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'” In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet …. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.

          http://www.grist.org/article/t…..ill-us-all

          Where would anyone get that idea MNG

        4. “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” Getting rid of everyone permanently solves the problem ? David Foreman former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society says the optimum number is zero. Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said, “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”

          http://www.akdart.com/enviro86.html

          And course they make commercials fantizing about killing their political enemies.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUxvjJMpztM

          1. It’s funny the fallacy John and his sources is committing is called the ‘hasty generalization’ because in his haste to generalize he actually cites the same guy and example twice!

            1. Don’t respond to the fact that the chief lobbyiest for the Wilderness Society is advocating the death of the human race.

              Just make some stupid statement. You are so pathetic MNG.

            2. The ending of the human epoch on Earth,” writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

              In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet …. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

              Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” Getting rid of everyone permanently solves the problem ? David Foreman former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society says the optimum number is zero.

              Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said, “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”

              Four different people. Four different horrible statements advocating the death of the human race. And not four nobodies. Four people who hold important academic and non porfit positions.

              Whatever you do MNG, don’t respond to the substance of an argument or a fact you don’t like. That is not written in your character is it.

              1. You know what John? You’re a mendacious prick and a partisan hack. However, just this once you are right.

      2. DesigNate “might” have been exagerating for effect.

      3. Sorry, I was over-exaggerating. Except for the souls thing.

        1. Sorry, I was over-exaggerating.

          No you weren’t. When you really question an ardent eco-theologist and reduce their arguments to the simplest terms, it becomes apparent that man is the enemy and they start to go Agent Smith. Excepting them, of course.

          1. Having never really known or spoken to an environmentalist, I was just joking. That they really think like that is fucking scary.

            1. I suspect they only come off that through the prism of DNS’s bias…The environmentalists that I know and have read seem to be motivated by

              1. a concern that current humans will be harmed by environmental damage
              2. a concern that future generations will be harmed
              3. and yes, some of them also value nature and/or its systems for their own sake (this really puts them equivalent with people like historical preservationists who value some things apart from their current usefulness to humans).

              Those who usually see evil genocidal plots in environmentalists words or writings are nearly always not giving an honest hearing/reading.

              1. Those who usually see evil genocidal plots in environmentalists words or writings are nearly always not giving an honest hearing/reading.

                I give them an honest reading, MNG. I’m not talking about the people who recycle (nevermind that recycling schemes tend to be money losers, but I digress) because they think it’s prudent to reduce waste. I’m speaking of the hard core, Greenpeace,ALF, PETA and Paul Erlich-y types, people, when you question their motives, reveal what I said is true. The eco-theologists are the progressive converse of SoCons and Freepers and the Lefties will not disavow them for fear of being kicked out of the trendy social club.

              2. Think of it like religion. There are people who feel positively about the label “environmentalist”, and shared a watered-down version of their beliefs, and even go to enviro-church on Earth Day and Arbor Day (planting a tree or whatever).

                But the true believers are fucking scary. TDP Pagan scary. And they are anti-human — they are pro nature, and they don’t believe humanity or human technology is a part of nature.

          2. From Dennis Miller, “Remember…a developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already owns a house in the woods.”

    2. I suspect it was a result of misinterpreting Nancy Reagan’s ‘Just Say No’ campaign. They thought she meant energy.

  2. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OP…..ear.japan/

    We do not have a nonfossil alternative that can make up the substantial power needs of the world other than nuclear power.

    We do not have a nonfossil alternative that can make up the substantial power needs of the world other than nuclear power.

    /’til you’re blue in the face!

    1. As even the blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn, even CNN is right once in a while.

      By the way, manmade nuclear reactors have been around for almost seventy years now, and in that time period there have now been a whopping TWO events that could legitimately be categorized as catastrophic.

      I can’t think of any other major industry on the planet that can boast a safety record as good as the nuclear power industry.

      1. As much as I hate to say it, at least part of that safety record is due to low infiltration of the technology. I fear that if nuclear were more readily available we would have more incidents, at least with 1970s tech.

        Future designs like mPower and other smaller reactors solve some of my concerns.

        1. Re: waffles,

          As much as I hate to say it, at least part of that safety record is due to low infiltration of the technology.

          That makes sense. You have a very heavily regulated industry, very high initial investment costs, very long time of ROI, and the high possibility of not obtaining the permits to build. Of course you will not see much innovation in such an environment.

          The situation is VERY similar to how Red Flag laws made investment in the new motorcar industry that more difficult (until their repeal.)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws

          Imagine if those laws were still in effect in GB! We have the equivalent of Red Flag laws in the US and many parts of the world when it comes to nuclear energy.

        2. The USN has proven year after year that nukes can be operated safely.

          In the 2nd photo from the bottom, five subs are picture. One in the dry dock, three along side the tender and the research sub NR1 is moored along the barge in between the tender and dry dock. Since I was there at the time this photo was taken, I know that there are two more subs out of view on the port side of the tender.

          http://www.argyllonline.co.uk/index.asp?id=206

          1. Re: GoNavy,

            That doesn’t count because, well, it’s the navy and we need subs to kills us some Ruskies… or Chinks, or Towel-heads, or whatever.

            But having nukes near ‘our’ parks? Balderdash and Jabberwocky!

          2. Indeed. Imagine how our modern humanitarian responses would go without our fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It sure wouldn’t be pretty!

  3. This is a bit dishonest, the objections to solar and wind noted have to do with particular placements of particular sites, not general objections. It’s like saying someone is opposed to prisons because they don’t want one built on Mount Rushmore…

    1. There were objections to a solar farm in fucking Death Valley, fer Jeebus’ sake. The best site for such a thing in the country, and they didn’t want one built there.

    2. The places where solar makes the most sense (where the sun shines almost every day) is where the environmentalists are arguing you’ll damage the “whatever bush”. Sure, we could build one on an empty parking lot in the northern UK, but its power output wouldn’t be enough to light one small shed.

      1. The places where solar makes the most sense (where the sun shines almost every day) is where the environmentalists are arguing you’ll damage the “whatever bush”.

        This is not, really, true. What you want is solar distributed near the point of use. Solar cells work fine in temperate and even cloudy climates with proper design.

    3. that is so dumb, I’m opposed to mount rushmore because it IS a prison.

    4. Dude, Lex Luthor is imprisoned in Washington’s head on Rushmore. I mostly oppose that because I admire Lex’s fashion sense.

      1. An all white suit? What kind of tasteless, metrosexual deviant are you?

        1. Don’t be an ass. The all white suit is the ne plus ultra of suits. One pomegranate margarita drop, and you’re fucked. Thus, you stay away from stupid drinks like that. Do you understand now, jerkoff?

          1. If it was good enough for Clemens and Sanders, it’s good enough for anyone.

          2. What? No Chocolate Choo-choo? No Appletini? Being a Tom Wolfe wannabe won’t save you from your sick urges, you know.

            1. You have no style. None. But that is unsurprising coming from the dude who hates white suits.

              1. As a Southerner, a secret fantasy of mine is to own an antebellum home, sit on the porch in my white suit, drinking bourbon and lemonade (not together), and saying “Beauregard!” every now and again.

                Once in a blue moon, people from town would come ask for my help: “Colonel [they’d call me colonel or maybe judge], there’s trouble in town.”

              2. And cans too. Don’t forget that I hate cans.

                1. Do you mean cans literally or cans euphemistically?

      2. I still say Balko should dress like that.

        1. Yes. Yes he should. But it would kind of ruin Radley’s image if his image was that of Lex Luthor.

          1. Isn’t Lex kinda the same as Balko? Both are enemies of the status quo. Both are fighting the power of the state. Both resemble cue balls.

            1. Radley is far more evil than Lex. That’s the difference.

              1. Is Luthor a libertarian? I say he is, albeit with a population of one being his focus.

                1. He’s a crony capitalist/authoritarian. He’s fine with a big government that he can manipulate, believes in war as a form of profit, and abhors Superman because he is the one person Luthor can’t control in some way.

                  1. But he, Lex, is free.

                  2. Where would Kal-El rate with libertarians? He seems like a bootlicking agent of the state. Have you ever, once seen him fight against crooked cops or corrupt agents of the state? Not-a-once.

                    Superman is a statist fuckface. Batman is like the Patriot Act on steroids.
                    Spiderman drank the Obama Kool-Ade.

                    Are there any libertarian superheroes?

                    1. If only he’d been found by libertarians!

                    2. They would have starved without their farm subsidies.

                    3. Are there any libertarian superheroes?

                      The Question

                    4. Batman/Superman Public Enemies. It’s probably the most libertarian thing Bats and Supes have ever done. (Not saying a lot)

      3. Did you vote for him for President?

    5. Re: MNG,

      This is a bit dishonest, the objections to solar and wind noted have to do with particular placements of particular sites, not general objections.

      What difference does it make in the end, MNG?

      Who’s being dishonest? And I am not saying you are – I am implying the so-called “environmentalists” are full of shit.

      1. The difference is that they may support it in many places, just not some places. That sounds normal for pretty much anything I can think of…

        1. Re: MNG,

          The difference is that they may support it in many places, just not some places.

          Doesn’t seem to be the case, MNG:

          http://www.redorbit.com/news/s…..est_enemy/

          http://www.thenewamerican.com/…..-windpower

          What you are thinking is that environmentalists talk about being in favor of wind and solar. Talk is cheap.

    6. It’s like saying someone is opposed to prisons because they don’t want one built on Mount Rushmore…

      Two words MNG: NANTUCKET SOUND! When the progressive mecca shows IT’S nimby stripes, they can go fuck themselves with rusty chainsaws regarding the veracity of the claim, “It’s about alternative energy and Saving The Planet?.” That’s right Teddy Kennedy’s back yard. If wind farms and solar schemes are good enough for the great unwashed, they are good enough for the hoity toity progressives. I’m pretty sure it will be a rapeless night in prison before we see Ole Teddy’s face on Mt Rushmore.

      1. “a rapeless night in prison ”

        My all-time favorite Tony Joe White song.

        1. SONG ALWAYS MAKE STEVE SMITH CRY.

      2. Best part of the Nantucket wind farm: it was over the horizon. So it wasn’t the hoi polloi affected, just the yacht crowd. To be fair, if you’re some teenage Kennedy looking to score with your drunk and passed out date would you want to have a wind farm breaking your mood?

    7. Except that it happens over and over and over again. Very few “particular placements” are not subject to NIMBYism.

      Its like cutting the budget. Everyone is in favor of budget cuts, except in their backyard, so the budget doesn’t get cut. Everyone is in favor of green energy, except in their backyard, etc.

      1. On a related note, the other rejoinder I hear is: “…people need to radically reduce their energy consumption… too much stuff…vulgar consumerism…blah, blah”. Then it’s on to discussion of the wonderful wines and cheeses we had on a recent trip to Dordogne, without missing a beat.

      2. You know, not all NIMBYism comes from environmentalists, and “environmentalists” are not some monolithic group…

        1. Re: MNG,

          You know, not all NIMBYism comes from environmentalists, and “environmentalists” are not some monolithic group[…]

          No group is monolithic. Some are quite NEOlithic – like the environmentalists!

        2. I once met an environmentalism that wasn’t a smug, judgmental know it all.

          Ha! Got you!

      3. It reminds me of an episode in the book Cheaper By The Dozen: the mother is opposed to spanking the children but doesn’t want to openly oppose the father, so she says she supports spanking the children but always objects to the part of the anatomy. “Not on the end of the spine, Frank!”

    1. Maybe that would have been more apropos on one of Sullum’s threads…

  4. I am sitting at my desk under halogen light imagining a beautiful future where we sit in the dark, hold hands, and sing praises to Gaia.

    1. …before being eaten by wolves.

    2. I’ll sit in the dark and sing to Gaia, but I’m not holding Warty’s hand…just throwing that out there right up front

    3. I know a fun game we can all play in the dark! It’s called “who’s in my mouth?”.

      1. Or as rather would call it – Wednesday.

        1. She’s been gone for the last day or two…do not summon it.

        2. Or as rather would call it – Wednesday.

          Let us not speak of “It who shall not be named.”

          1. Sorry, I haven’t been around much lately. Just thought it was still under its rock.

            1. I sense the banhammer at work.

              1. Nope, because she has just now switched to never using her name. All the one-off bitchy little comments are her. And have been her for a long time now.

                1. I feel there’s some sexual tension between her and Episiarch. Of the grudge-fuck variety. Saw a lot of this in college.

                  1. One word: daaddy issues.

                    1. I find that disturbing. SugarFree disturbing.

                  2. Oh, definitely. Self-loathing around her own sexuality expressed as an uncontrollable obsession with someone she professed to hate. Freud would cream his jeans to analyze her. Throw in her weight issues, her dereference to authority figures, her amazing levels of narcissism, and her massive sense of entitlement, you have a pathetic creature that a psychiatrist could base a whole career on.

          2. That of which we do not speak, except when we’re speaking about not speaking of that which we do not speak of speaking of…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      2. Another fun game to play in the dark: The Photography Game: turn out the lights and see what develops.

        Or the Telly Savalas game: Turn out the lights and see who gets bald.

  5. I don’t know about most environmentalists, but I’ve met a few who, if pressed, end up admitting that they would be happy if most of the human race was gone. (Anecdotal I know, but these folks do exist. Though if they were true to their beliefs, they’d off themselves.)

    1. If they off themselves, who will preach the good news of Gaia.

  6. “Human beings are a disease. A cancer of this planet – you are a plague. And we…are the cure.”

    1. Ah, the Matrix, how I loved thee.

    2. . . . and we’ll get to you meat bags just as soon as we cure our sex addiction. LOL

      Jess
      http://www.anonz.com

      1. Did an anonbot just… call… us… meatbags…

        1. The end is nigh.

        2. Well, its better than being called a tofu and sprouts bag

  7. “But there is one big problem: Environmentalists are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives, as well.”

    Their “men are evil for Gaia” agenda is clearly showing.

  8. It’s about prioritizing. Everything inherently contains a “blessing” and a “curse”. The trick is to choose in a way that maximizes the blessings and minimizes the curses. Saying it’s “all the same” is a set-up which is designed to stifle people from engaging their critical thinking skills and their real need to choose priorities. Not all energy is equal and our energy policy is decided on the criteria of immediate gratification and greed. We need to change this policy and act like grown-ups.

    1. Re: Darrell,

      Not all energy is equal and our energy policy is decided on the criteria of immediate gratification and greed.

      When you go to a restaurant, would you not be greedy for rapid gratification? When you go to buy clothes, or groceries, or anything else, don’t you want rapid gratification?

      Why is it that, when it comes to energy, you want a “policy” that everybody should abide by, instead of letting people decide on the terms and needs each prefer?

      1. Agree. That’s why the monopolies on power distribution are such bullshit.

        Imagine if we were able to shop for electricity from different providers? Hell, even the people here (CA central valley) who have solar panels and turbines on their property are forced to sell it to the monopoly at a rate the company establishes. They are also required to purchase electricity from the same company.

        It’s absurdities like this that will prevent the US from becoming a leader in energy production technology. Too many barriers to entry and policies already in place that a free market could replace at a net savings to the consumer.

    2. The trick is to choose in a way that maximizes the blessings and minimizes the curses.

      Oh, for a second there, I thought you were saying that *we* get to choose, you know, through individual choice and collective, independent actions that maximize personal well-being and liberty for everyone.

      Now I realize that you meant by “choose,” to “sit down, shut up and do the fuck what you’re told to do by your betters.”

      I’m such a silly goose.

  9. The Simpsons: Homer to the Max
    Featuring a voice cameo from actor and environmental activist Ed Begley Jr. (who recites the classic line “It’s a go-cart powered by my own sense of self-satisfaction)

    http://www.answers.com/topic/t…..to-the-max

  10. OK, I’m gonna try this out and see if the stories are true.

    [looks into mirror]

    Rectal!

    1. Rectal!

      1. Rectal!

  11. Environmentalists imagine a world where we all live in a self sufficient lives, not harming Mother Earth, growing our own food, blah blah blah…

    There’s a word for self sufficient.

    It’s called poverty.

    EnviroMENTALists may not actually realize it (being that they’re, well, MENTAL), but they long for a world where everyone lives in poverty.

    1. I like how even though you put MENTAL in ALL CAPS you still felt the need to explain what was going on a few words later. Nicely played there!

      How are things on the farm btw?

      1. “How are things on the farm btw?”

        Ever since the UN banned fossil fuels for non-governmental purposes, not that well.

        Going back to pre-industrial age technology has been pretty tough.

        At least I saved the Foxfire books, so I am more fortunate than some.

        Then there are the marauders to deal with, but that’s a story of its own.

    2. It is pretty funny how so many of the liberals who lecture us about what a miserable, dystopian hellhole life in America before FDR was would like to force us to return to the standard of living that existed back then.

      1. Funny like it makes you think, right ?

        not ha ha funny.

      2. Why is it funny?
        Liberals are intellectually dishonest hypocrites.
        They define tolerance in terms of who they do not tolerate.
        They define inclusion in terms of who they exclude.
        They define equality in terms of who they feel to be inferior.
        Wanting to progress to a standard of living that existed in the past fits their intellectually dishonest and hypocritical way of “thinking”.

  12. Seems pretty pathetic that a website that holds “reason” so dear would have such a terrible article that contains none. The generalization of environmentalists is ridiculous because it is including many different views and treating them as one. Sure there are people who oppose nuclear energy and people who oppose wind energy, but rarely are they the same. Hell I’d go so far as to say people who oppose wind energy because of bird deaths or scenery should be completely ignored in any energy debate. But that’s besides the point.
    People need to stop associating all environmental views with each other – my interest in reducing greenhouse gases does in no way imply a belief in some bullshit Gaia belief. Get over yourselves and stop treating “environmentalist” like a bad word. Start using your goddamn “reason” and actually addressing the claims, not the stereotypes.

    1. DRINK & RAPE!

      1. In that order?

        1. Isn’t that the conventional order ?

          1. When does he smoke the cigarette?

    2. “Start using your goddamn “reason” and actually addressing the claims, not the stereotypes.”

      You mean like the EPA is trying to do with CO2?

    3. “goddamn”

      BTW, swearing is frowned upon here.

    4. Drink and call the whaaaaaaambulance!

    5. The problem is that the more extreme elements of the environmentalist political community do appear to be framing much of the debate. Pretending that drastic action in the West will alone solve any problems presented by AGW is irrational, not just fallacious, as is expecting fundamental and rapid shifts in the West. Ditto opposition to things like nuclear, which, if you’re concerned about excess carbon and other pollutants, makes little sense.

      Certainly, no large group is monolithic, but the direction of the movement seems more political/economic than environmental. To my mind, the only real solution, to the extent that there are real problems, is technological. The resistance to technological solutions (other than in “approved” areas like solar) is a major problem.

      1. Certainly, no large group is monolithic, but the direction of the movement seems more political/economic than environmental.

        So true PL

        I’d add quasi-religous (even without getting into the Gaia love bs) to political/economic.

    6. Concern green is concerned.

      Thanks for contributing to the discussion by offering up your potential solutions to the problem and how those solutions would impact the environment.

    7. What I can’t understand is this person’s overwhelming need to defend himself to a group that he clearly finds abhorrent. There was nothing in this post except a super-defensive version of “but…but…but…we’re not all like that! Don’t judge me, pleeeeeeeze”.

      Fricken weird, man.

    8. Let me shorten that up for you. Greenhouse Gas Chicken Littles: m’kay. Wind Farm Bird Wheepers: uh uh.

  13. Those kooky environmentalists… trying to convince us they care about saving the world when all they really care about is going barefoot everywhere and not washing their hair. They’re basically dirty little hippie trolls without a rational bone in their body, as I learned from some website. Therefore, all of climate science is a hoax, QED.

    1. non sequitur ?

    2. Turn that around:
      Libertarians are all rich assholes. They all want to destroy the earth for their own pleasure. They’re basically dirty little rich capitalist polluters without a caring bone in their body, as I learned from some website called the NYT. Therefore, all individual liberty is bullshit, QED.

      This game is fun.

      1. You left out Somalia.

        1. LibertarianS are all rich asshOles. They all want to destroy the earth for their own pleasure. They’re basically dirty little rich capitalist polluters without a caring bone in their body, as I learned from soMe website cALled the NYT. Therefore, all IndividuAl liberty is bullshit, QED.

          Someone didn’t read between the lines.

          1. pwn’d.

            1. I accept the Chastisement.

          2. NICE!!!

      2. Don’t flatter us. Nobody thinks we have money. They think we are slavish, shameless apologists for those who do.

    3. ‘Hide the decline’ hasn’t been so easy to whitewash, Mr Douche, has it.

  14. Meanwhile, huge coal deposits in eastern Montana are being “protected” from exploitation by people who don’t like the idea of small portions of a large expanse of scrubby uninhabited prairie being “destroyed”.

    1. You’re just a praire dog hatin’ bastard aren’t yah?

      1. If you ever met a prairie dog, you’d hate them too.

  15. The fact is enviros bitched for decades about nukes in fault zones. And they were right on this one.

    Sometimes the other guy has a point. Bag the constant ideology and chew on an unpleasant fact now and then.

    1. Do they actually have a point? Right now the scale of the problem is unknown. They would have a much better argument against actually settling fault zones, given the death toll directly due to the tsunami and quake.

  16. Really? The anti-Nuke movement was all about building Nukes on faults?

    If the anti-Nuke crowd had their way there’d be no nuke energy and the remaining energy sources would be much, much more expensive. Is that the other guy’s point – to make us all poor?

  17. EBJ, you are very bad at putting words in other people’s mouths.

    It was one of their points. It is one that now appears to have been justified. Is everything in your world black and white? No gray, ever? Hmmm…just a little bit? Maybe?

  18. Most environmentalists think they are well-intentioned progressives while advocating the most regressive economic policy around. Mandating higher cost alternative energies might as well be a big fat tax on the poor and lower middle class, whose energy costs as a percentage of income will skyrocket far faster than earnings. Even if government welfare programs and mandates are set up to help the poorest keep from getting their artificially expensive electricity shut off in July or January, this causes even further disproportionate cost-shifting onto the middle class, whose prices will go even higher to absorb the impact of socialization. Without these things, the likelihood will go up that power will be yanked from the poor when it is most expensive, most used and most necessary.

    In concert with Malthusianism, perhaps killing the poor is the end game? Nah, I won’t be that cynical. It’s more like “f***ing economics, how does it work?”

    1. f[uck]ing economics, how does it work?

      By subsidizing the unsustainable use of polluting energy?

      Again, you guys complain about all the problems of the world as it is, then go on assuming the status quo is representative of some sort of libertarian ideal. Polluting energy is not cheap! It’s just subsidized, not least because the cost of pollution is unaccounted for.

      1. WE ARE AGAINST ALL SUBSIDIES!!!

  19. No nuke plants near fault lines, because there might be a quake of unprecedented magnitude.

    No nuke plants within 150 miles of an ocean, because there might be a tsunami.

    No nuke plants within 25 miles of a navigable river, because [insert unlikely catastrophe here].

    and on, and on…

    1. Simplify!

  20. They are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives because they are more interested in “changing our lifestyles” than in combatting global warming.

  21. If there was ever an explanation of why the real world largely ignores libertarians, you can find it here.

    Ideology uber alles, y’all.

    1. BUTTER Y’ALL

    2. Yet the numerous times that free-market theory makes a prediction about how some government action will be detrimental due to unintended consequences or ignoring reality, such as Sarbannes-Oxley, Obamacare, etc, etc, are routinely ignored because???

  22. Groups that never propose realistic solutions are simply not worth taking seriously. Unfortunately, this characterizes the arguments put forth by some environmentalists people in any movement including libertarianism, progressives, conservatives, luddites, Christians, communists, or members of the chess club. They should not be given a seat at the adults’ table until they demonstrate an ability to propose a serious solution to the most serious of problems.

    1. I am beginning to think Ron Bailey was molested by an “environmentalist” as a child.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.