“If Chancellor Merkel … really cares about reducing CO2 in this world, why is she going away from nuclear?” Pruitt asked. “It’s so hypocritical for countries to look at the United States and say, ‘You need to do more.’ Really? So, we’ve reduced our pollutants under the Clean Air Act [criteria pollutants and CO2].”
[…]
Merkel has been a leading critic of the Trump administration for deciding to leave the Paris climate change agreement, which seeks to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
“The environmental Left has truly created this mindset that somehow environmental protection is ‘do not touch.’ Really? When we are called to feed the world, really? When we are called to power the world. When we do it better than anyone in the world already,” Pruitt said.
Now they need to call out Hollywood.
Related.
Imbeciles…nothing but imbeciles…its all I see: IN Government, In Academia and especially in Journalists (Right wing bloggers excepted). To Kill Nuclear power in favour of Coal is, well, just plain stupid and as we all know, ya just cant fix that condition now can ya..?
I honestly believe that all the garbage we are constantly bombarded with is nothing less and nothing more than full on Marxism using whatever method it can to destabilize and eventually destroy Western Civilization and the Capitalism that fuels it. Said garbage being: Gender Identity, Overt in yer face sexual deviance (via LGBTLMNOXYZ Activists & Leftist Educators – Wynne for ex.), Climate Change, Anti Fossil Fuel-Pipeline etc., Political Correctness, Anti Progress and the forced in-migration to west of those those who are avowed to destroy it. And all of it backed by an Islamic Run UN and damned near EVERY Western Politician.
The only glimmer of hope has been Donald Trump..and I am having some misgivings about him these days as well…as the tide of insane BS washes over him too.
The issue is, that I forsee a backlash, and one that wont back down from confrontation of any kind….Welcome to Armageddon.
Pruitt better be careful. Otherwise turdo la doo AND Andrew “Paris” Scheer will scrath hith eyeth out for thaying mean thingth about their friend Angela.
Thats it exactly. One of the mysteries of the left green fanatics, is their phobia regarding nuclear generated electricity. Probably because of their ban-the-bomb days. many of the same people,cannot distinguish between destructive and positive uses for nuclear. They have conveniently pegged it as a “non renewable” source and thus not worth considering.
Consider Ont, Wynne and McGuinty could have saved $Billions by simply emphasizing over 75% power generated by clean, green efficient sources, and saved unsightly pollution and degradation of Ont cropland in the process. Today Hydro and nuclear are producing 90% of electricity Supply (IESO figures) and Wind rounds to 1.5%. The whole Wind boondoggle is a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. What would be the cost and opportunity cost of increasing that 1.5% share up to 20% or whatever Liberals set as the goal?
One of the mysteries of the left green fanatics, is their phobia regarding nuclear generated electricity.
It’s not a mystery. The anti-nuclear activists were being paid by the Soviets to undermine the West’s nuclear advantage, and that continued on into the environmental movement. It was never about banning the bomb or saving the planet; it was about undermining the West.
“The environmental Left has truly created this mindset that somehow environmental protection is ‘do not touch.'”
James Delingpole on that same subject:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/17/delingpole-urgent-memo-to-donald-trump-the-biggest-threat-to-the-environment-are-environmentalists/
I’ve been saying it for years. When the AGW crowd fully embraces nuclear power as a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases, then I’ll consider if they might be correct in their catastrophic predictions. The AGW godfather, James Hansen, gave it some favorable lip service and I was hopeful but nothing really has changed.
Europe in general, including GB, is so confused about what they’re doing. Consider the case of France:
“An official spokesman for Macron said the candidate would stick to the policy outlined in his campaign platform, which specifies he would respect the outgoing socialist government’s target to reduce the share of nuclear in French power production to 50 percent by 2025 from about 75 percent now.
Relaxing the deadline for reducing the country’s reliance on nuclear power would be highly beneficial for state-owned EDF (EDF.PA), already struggling with high debt, which otherwise could be forced to close more than a dozen of its 58 reactors.”
There is no sanity in the “Green” movement….
The problem facing we SANE environmentalists on the conservation side of conservatism is …”branding”. Yep, simple marketing and branding of our reasonable policies of energy management, forest management, and environmental management. We LOST the nuclear “branding” war back in the 1970’s. Jane Fonda made a film titled “The China Syndrome” (when nuclear power plant cores melt-down through the earth … all the way to China … yah, riiiiight). Jane and her Hollywooden propagandists effectively destroyed nuclear power in the USA … even launching the multiple, serial, decommissioning of existing nuclear power plants. All because of successfully “branding” the industry with FEAR. Fear of a national Hiroshima and Nagasaki … in exchange for an affordable monthly energy bill.
And we lost the forest management “branding” war when the Eco-left successfully argued that forest fires were “natural” and were actually “needed” to “germinate crucial forest seeds”. The multiple disastrous effects of our current Forest Service policies have created (as nicely outlined in Delingpole’s Breitbart article; soil organics destruction, dominance of weak, burnable, matchstick trees, etc.) has never been explained to the public. Not in brief, simple, sloganeered, “branding” messages. We need to get better at communicating to a (largely science-illiterate public) … in simple terms.
The best (and only) successful “branding” effort I have heard, so far, from our side is the phrase “all of the above” energy policies. Simple. Logical. Understandable. It does not condemn Solar or wind, but puts them in their place (which in the free marketplace is severely limited). It does not “choose a winner” … but implies that the free marketplace will decide the winner(s). If nuclear checks ALL the boxes of; price efficiency, zero carbon, safety, and reliability … then it will naturally self-select as an energy winner. It also implies energy abundance as we consider ALL forms of energy generation. What’s good for one region, may not be in another.
We need to hire the best and the brightest advertising talent to communicate simply … with minimal words and concepts to a well-meaning but dull-witted public. Madison Ave. has produced (and continues to produce) exceedingly effective anti smoking advertisements that have radically altered public opinion toward smoking. We need to harness similar talent to communicate the essential message of “cheap, plentiful, safe, ENERGY for ALL”. That the best way to transform poor countries into successful wealthy countries (and individual citizens) is cheap, abundant, energy.
I would like to see the “all of the above” energy policies advertised with sweeping, cinematic, videos and pictures of before-and-after landscapes littered with wind towers and solar panel farms. We are despoiling the environment to “save” the environment. We need to demonstrate the eco-damage being done by the eco-leftists.
*
read “super freakonomics” by professor steven d. levitt and stephen j. dubner
for the skinny on the global warming hysteria… start at page 176.
some gems… “the problem with solar cells is that they’re black, designed to
absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity,
the rest is reradiated as heat… which contributes to global warming.”
also, there is an easy, cost effective solution to alleged global warming,
if it ever becomes a problem… think volcanoes.
bonus… chapter on the bogus kittie genovese murdered while 38 people
watched… another on safety stats… seat belts v. child seats.
a must read.
*
Nuclear power plants:
If the BAG is full you have to delete some to make room for enough BS crap
that will cripple the whole system.. Can’t have a Marxist revolution unless everything has tanked….
Marxism is an economic system devised by group thinking…a clump of nothing for nothing..
Funny thing is, the US already reduced its emissions thanks to fracking. The eco fanatics are too late. Their window is closing or has closed.
….and then there is the Eco-loons latest wet dream:
EV’s for everyone…uhuh. Yup, that’s gonna save Gaiea, resurrect Polar Bear populations and prevent the seas from rising… or so the mantra goes.
but, but, but….how are you going to re-charge lets say 500,000,000 EV’s in North America alone…?
Hydro.? Seems to me its pretty well tapped out here and elsewhere.
Coal.? We could but it ain’t ever gonna happen.
Nat Gas..maybe, but its a “fossil Fuel”…not gonna happen
Solar and Wind..laughable at best..
So whats left..? your kids on bicycle style dynamo’s..? “Ride, you little cretins…RIDE..!! I say..!!
The only viable alternative is in fact Nuclear and we all know what the GREEN movement has to say about that one…
EV’s for everyone by ~2040..?
Somehow I just don’t think so.
They are antinuke because their paymaster, the Soviet Union, was building nuclear reactors. Thry figured if it is good for Mother Russia, it would be good for the West.