Comments on: opt out of the nuclear option http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334 Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:35:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Prudence Prigg http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334&cpage=1#comment-67714 Prudence Prigg Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:16:13 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334#comment-67714 You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually one thing that I think I'd by no means understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I'm having a look ahead on your subsequent put up, I will try to get the cling of it! You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually one thing that I think I’d by no means understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I’m having a look ahead on your subsequent put up, I will try to get the cling of it!

]]> By: spike http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334&cpage=1#comment-1229 spike Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:25:34 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334#comment-1229 Truth be told, no single mind can link all the repercussions that such a project will tug on. Yet it cannot be overlooked that financial capital earmarked for certain ventures can’t be liquidated for a replacement venture, in the face of so many stakeholders and planners. A further question to ponder is: human rights, and who are we talking about? Perhaps the proponents of fusion projects are worried about their own future, their own nation, etc., and hope that in bringing this clean energy on-line, they will save the climate for everybody… what a perfect public good! And what humanitarianism! Truth be told, no single mind can link all the repercussions that such a project will tug on. Yet it cannot be overlooked that financial capital earmarked for certain ventures can’t be liquidated for a replacement venture, in the face of so many stakeholders and planners.

A further question to ponder is: human rights, and who are we talking about? Perhaps the proponents of fusion projects are worried about their own future, their own nation, etc., and hope that in bringing this clean energy on-line, they will save the climate for everybody… what a perfect public good! And what humanitarianism!

]]> By: sieber http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334&cpage=1#comment-1217 sieber Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:16:36 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=334#comment-1217 I think the Greenpeace representative is offering (or is being quoted as offering) a stupid argument. Economic arguments are not ones with which environmentalists can win because the counter argument, "we shouldn't spend money on the environment when so many people are starving/dying in the cold," is so compelling. Following that line of counter argument means that we could have more money for alternate fuels if we didn't spend money on conservation or, more expensively, industry regulations. A better argument concerns the lack of safety of plants--the fault lines--or of waste disposal. Then Greenpeace can say, "if you build more plants, it'll be the poor countries that will suffer because that's where the rich countries will send their waste to." A larger argument, of course, is whether alternate energies can provide our ever-expanding needs. I'd hate to see more nuclear (fission) plants. Perhaps fusion will provide a bigger percentage of the energy needs than the alternatives. So why not invest in fusion and wind and solar, etc. Otherwise when oil runs out and the bill comes due, we won't have enough money to fix the world economy. I think the Greenpeace representative is offering (or is being quoted as offering) a stupid argument. Economic arguments are not ones with which environmentalists can win because the counter argument, “we shouldn’t spend money on the environment when so many people are starving/dying in the cold,” is so compelling. Following that line of counter argument means that we could have more money for alternate fuels if we didn’t spend money on conservation or, more expensively, industry regulations. A better argument concerns the lack of safety of plants–the fault lines–or of waste disposal. Then Greenpeace can say, “if you build more plants, it’ll be the poor countries that will suffer because that’s where the rich countries will send their waste to.”

A larger argument, of course, is whether alternate energies can provide our ever-expanding needs. I’d hate to see more nuclear (fission) plants. Perhaps fusion will provide a bigger percentage of the energy needs than the alternatives. So why not invest in fusion and wind and solar, etc. Otherwise when oil runs out and the bill comes due, we won’t have enough money to fix the world economy.

]]>