EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24735
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Dingo [ Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Well they both get it right and they both get it wrong, which is more to the point. These are some bright folks but it shows you once again how finely tuned arguments in a box finally are losers when you leave out the problem of the actual box. And that box is, of course, the problem of being overpopulated and growing. Since neither want to address it, both are finally destined to run the train off the rails.

I'll wait for later to critique these matters in detail.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/10/07/t ... #more-6485

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

She does good on most until the nuclear ranting that did not understand what Gen IV was all about---like using radioactive waste, non-proliferation, very low waste, modular, no water cooling needed--the usual anti-any nuclear garbage feted as being "green", and the complete lack of realization that decarbonization also requires rapid population reduction.

Author:  Dingo [ Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

I'm going to play it agnostic on this one. Mark Lynas blasts Naomi Klein for hijacking the problem of global warming into an attack on capitalism. Again, apparently both of them don't seem to want to address overpopulation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... l-extremes

Quote:
In insisting that tackling carbon emissions must be subordinated into a wider agenda of social revolution and the dismantling of corporate capitalism, Klein isn’t making climate mitigation easier: she is making it politically toxic. In rejecting “too easy” solutions such as nuclear power and advanced renewables technologies (the dreaded “technofix”), the left puts its cards on the table – and confirms what the right has always suspected: that climate mitigation is not a primary but at best a secondary goal.

This is also a debate conducted in a western bubble. No one in India doubts that the emergence from poverty of hundreds of millions of people in south Asia will require the production of prodigious amounts more energy – far more than could ever be compensated for by any remotely plausible “energy austerity” path taken by the west.

Author:  Farmer [ Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Dingo I don't mean to argue ,I picked up on that same idea that "Mark Lynas blasts Naomi Klein for hijacking the problem of global warming into an attack on capitalism"
Soooo....Mark's point is ??One social structure is more sustainable than another? My observation is that all the "........isms" have failed to adress environmental limits more or less equally.
I have a theory that the root of our problems go all the way back to the beginings of human culture, our foundation is flawed by being based upon violence and therefore no matter what "......ism"structure is built upon that foundation it will also be flawed to the point of self destruction.
From what I have heard from Naomi, she comes across as being genuine. I don't always agree with everything she says but I certainly respect her gift for communication as she usually gets me thinking.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

The big mistake is putting "green' as an either 'right' or 'left' thing. Along with the biggest mistake of not attributing the root cause of over-emissions to thermageddon as overpopulation. The communist nations have the worst environmental record, and democracy with dumb people is not a help, either. We need an educated, decorated combat veteran benevolent dictator to have a chance of rapid decarbonization and population decline with quality control to get back the strength and intelligence we hade around 1950. I humbly volunteer to be the world leader. First order, blow Yellowstone!!! :mrgreen:

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The big mistake is putting "green' as an either 'right' or 'left' thing. :


So says the leftist when they wish to conceal, obfuscate, lie, to ram unpopular policies, regulations, and laws down the throat of an unsuspecting population just going about their daily lives trying to make ends meet. Its all for the peoples good isn’t it?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Milton Banana wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The big mistake is putting "green' as an either 'right' or 'left' thing. :


So says the leftist when they wish to conceal, obfuscate, lie, to ram unpopular policies, regulations, and laws down the throat of an unsuspecting population just going about their daily lives trying to make ends meet. Its all for the peoples good isn’t it?


You should listen to him because Milton is an expert on how to conceal, obfuscate, and lie, just read his posts and you will see excellent examples of all three.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Milton Banana wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The big mistake is putting "green' as an either 'right' or 'left' thing. :


So says the leftist when they wish to conceal, obfuscate, lie, to ram unpopular policies, regulations, and laws down the throat of an unsuspecting population just going about their daily lives trying to make ends meet. Its all for the peoples good isn’t it?


I have been considered far right, so you are wrong there, Milton. Overpopulation causes the economic woes, and the general ignorance.
45 years and three months of pain so far, daily reminders that I fought communism, and still hate it along with islam, the invasion of our country by mex reconquistas, and millions of foreign types that were never here before 1965. The worst, is that our species COULD have changed the future, but didn't. Be ready for all the worst I have written on all of this, from overpopulation to terminal extinction from Earth.
Don't you feel any guilt? If you had morals, you should, Milton. :razz: :mrgreen:

Author:  herlbert [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Therefore, what could be the best solution to the overpopulation. If it was the cause of economic woes? Let alone the general ignorance.
For, general ignorance can be a choice IMO.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Naomi Klein vs. the nuclear folks

Ignorance can be a choice of the lazy, or a place already so overpopulated they can no longer afford teachers, or the lowest spectrum of IQ has most of the people. This affects learning, along with mercury and other environmental poisons.
Economically, more demand is from more people and raises prices, while more demand for jobs lowers incomes. The world as a whole is actually poor.
With all of the knowledge of it for 50 years, we have been unable to stop "the Juggernaut" of overpopulation to crash. So, overpopulation leads to a crash, usually with a slow recovery to staying near long term sustainable level. This time is different in that after a certain point, recovery of the biosphere from runaway to GTE is passed before the population crashes. No recovery, or a 30 million year recovery.
That point in time is within a decade, so we could not go to all no emissions with any technology, in time. It would take the miracle of Yellowstone super erupting.
The survivors, coming out of the ashes into a medieval world still polluted with numerous wastes, and the ice age coming on schedule. No matter what, the biosphere will be much harsher, as a best case scenario. :-({|= :-k 8-[ :eh: :shock: :-& :-# :mrgreen:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/