Originally Posted by
Montmorency
How do you address the long lead times for any new nuclear project, say entering pre-planning today? We're long past 2 *C when the first new plants come fully online.
Even China, which has had a nuclear boom in the past 30 years, appears to be putting on the brakes (despite contemporaneously - IIRC cited years ago in a different thread here - also pulling back on coal). Is talking about nuclear helpful without long-term planning placing it as the centerpiece of a climate strategy, and can nuclear-first (or nuclear-anything) be advanced without a top-down, even authoritarian control?
Best time to plant a tree is yesterday, next best time is today. But it is a good point you bring up, I never really say this out loud but nuclear is not really for reducing emissions. Solar, wind, and other technologies that can be implemented faster will serve that role.
No, we have an issue even if we stopped all emissions today. When the Unites States was founded, our CO2 concentrations were 280ppb, now they are above 400 and climbing rapidly. Our coal and oil comes from millions of years of dead trees exposed to high pressure and heat in the crust breaking down complex structures into more basic elemental compounds. In order to replicate this through various means of carbon sequestration will take massive amounts of energy. Think of the energy released over 200 years of burning fossil fuels and now we must put it back in. The nuclear planets will be needed to support our ongoing efforts to actively scrub our atmosphere back down to pre-industrial levels, in a manner that is manageable on a large energy scale, over long time spans (most nuclear plants have been active for several decades and still running) and with a small footprint physically. Otherwise, we may need to cover all of Wyoming with solar panels to generate the extra energy needed to be re-directed sufficient for de-carbonization of the climate.
It's not first, it's actually nuclear last. But they would still need to be in the pipeline today to come online when needed.
While we're thinking, what's the word on restrictive scarcity of rare metals available on the planet for renewable?
Rare earth metals are badly named. They are not that rare in the crust, and we have sufficient supply. Only issues are the geopolitics where these elements are currently mined in.
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/crit...-energy-future
Funny enough, there was a worry about peak oil due regarding scarcity. But as it turns out, when an element becomes rarer and more expensive it becomes cost effective to exploit more difficult locations. The physical absence is not an issue, only the price at which it can be obtained.
Such as? Anyway, voters don't care about policy minutiae. "I have a plan" could be a workable slogan.
For any substantive disagreements, remember that either none of her proposals will be on the agenda due to lack of Senate control, or the kinks will be hashed out in legislative process. The more relevant criteria for the election will be the candidate's character, executive managerial skill, and your affinity to the overall shape of their platform and ideology.
That's silly. What's good about a supermajority requirement for all regulatory changes? I've pointed out that this is very much against the Founders' intent, if one cares about that sort of thing. It's against the intent of Congress for most of the filibuster's history. More importantly there is literally no possibility of passing any meaningful legislation without removing it, which is not just bad for the Democratic Party's electoral prospects - it's bad for the country. No can has suicide pact, plz.
There is no good argument for defending the contemporary filibuster on the merits.
Funnily enough, the only major Dem candidate you align with on this issue is Sanders, though his alternative (having the Vice President ignore Senate rules unilaterally) is arguably far more extreme.
Politically at heart I am a Federalist, although paradoxically in American terms I would say I am influenced by the Anti-Federalists. I think the United States has a better future with states that experiment under a Federal government that polices behavior and compliance with Constitutional values and clauses vs a unitary system that tries to apply policies that fit neither myself the Californian nor the Texan nor the Jerseyan. The latter I think just sows further discontent and dysfunction.
Note I am not necessarily saying keep the filibuster in its current form, only that the logic behind its removal goes no further than short term strategic thinking. If you wish to remove it, then leave aside "but removing it would help us win right now" and convince me that in the long-run this would be a valuable structural change that wouldn't cause further destabilization. I think we have had this conversation before on outcomes, stability and continuity.
Speaking as generally as possible, that is ABSOLUTELY what it means. Rules have no value in themselves, only in the outcomes they promote and the processes they scaffold.
Example: The rule is "don't do or generate muscular, mental, mechanical, or electrical work on Saturday." I don't follow the rule. ACIN does. I ask why.
"Just because you're violating the
halacha doesn't mean I should give it up."
"But you're not Jewish, bro. What is this doing for you?"
"
In-stitutions!"
If maintaining shomer shabbos reinforces the adherence of other rules that promote the public good, then there is a value in assessing whether the dissolution of this particular rule won't create backlash against other rules.
This isn't some hypothetical here Monty, and in practicality yes we could probably lose the filibuster and move on as usual. BUT, as with any politically polarized time, large public acts/reforms have repercussions which cannot be predicted.
The French revolution originally started over reforming the Ancien Regime financials, the Mexican revolution started over mismanagement of Porfirio Diaz succession. Both instances saw the focus go tangentially into reforms for anti-authoritarian, representative government. My worry is this isn't limited to just authoritarian -> enlightment, but is a reversible course.
Institutions quite frankly have a value in and of themselves. Radical reform spurs counter reform and escalation is quite frankly unmanageable unless you mean to tell me that we can safely ignore or even embrace the known unknowns in the hopes that whatever comes out in the end is statistically more likely to align with our political views. Again this may be true with removing the filibuster (an accidental rule to begin with) but eliminating the senate? Undoing one of the biggest compromises that allowed the US to form to begin with? I just don't know about that.
The filibuster as Republicans have used it benefits Republicans more than it does Democrats. To pass progressive legislation the filibuster must be neutralized. What more do you need?
What do you have in mind for the House? The only thing I can think of is PAYGO, but this is underwritten by legislation, and is waive-as-you-go anyway.
And when Democrats controlled the Senate there was plenty of conservative legislation denied then, which benefited us. As I said above, this is short term thinking. Even if we accept the Senate as forever off limits to Democrats because of population and demographic trends, then the argument comes back that the nature of the House means demographically it is increasingly off limits to Republicans. At this point we are admitting the removal of an entire institution for the goal of complete and permanent control of the Federal government. I am sure that will work itself out peacefully.
Recently, 'liberal lion' and old-school New Dealer John Dingell (longest-serving Congressperson in history, died 3 months ago) published
a piece on reforming Congress. One of his suggestions was the abolition of the Senate. Permanent minority rule is bad; whether the Senate is reformed or abolished constitutionally, permanent minority rule is bad. A framework that encourages permanent minority rule is a diseased one.
And what is the cost in order to achieve such a large goal?
Re: Democrat 2020
Bookmarks