Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Keyboard Warriors]

Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

This. What's the merit of stuff that people don't want to be accessible and easily navigable to the point more people can adapt to their lifestyles?

Because people don't work for free? Because research and development costs money? Because marketing to spread the word of the product is expensive?

It's ridiculous that producing organic food is actually less expensive, but they sell it by thrice, fourfold the price of stuff that isn't labeled as such.

To produce? Maybe. To buy in significant quantity, to package, transport, stock and sell? No way. Economies of scale.

[Socialist Czechia]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

the last part. lolwut.

One example: solar energy. Only little practical use, electricity expensive as f*ck, states almost bankrupt to get enough funds and international private companies rich as f*ck

[Socialist Czechia]

This. What's the merit of stuff that people don't want to be accessible and easily navigable to the point more people can adapt to their lifestyles?

Because people don't work for free? Because research and development costs money? Because marketing to spread the word of the product is expensive?

It's ridiculous that producing organic food is actually less expensive, but they sell it by thrice, fourfold the price of stuff that isn't labeled as such.

To produce? Maybe. To buy in significant quantity, to package, transport, stock and sell? No way. Economies of scale.

Why billions for insufficient energy sources, when there is already fusion energy research?

Only fusion reactors can give humanity enough energy to fully replace fossile sources with no dangerous waste.

And until we get fusion reactors, we should built only fission reactors - very stable and clean energy compared to old ones.

You simply must choose if you want more coal mines and oil drills or nuclear reactors. Two options.

(environmentalists are silly people who wants to believe in third option - there is none)

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Source.

In my country, at least.

http://www.vidanocampoonline.com/index.php/artigos/1940-hortalicas-sistema-organico-e-mais-barato-que-convencional

http://planetasustentavel.abril.com.br/noticia/saude/dilemas-sustentaveis-produtos-organicos-caros-715179.shtml

http://www.diadecampo.com.br/zpublisher/materias/Materia.asp?id=25407&secao=Pacotes%20Tecnol%F3gicos

[Keyboard Warriors]

Because people don't work for free? Because research and development costs money? Because marketing to spread the word of the product is expensive?


To produce? Maybe. To buy in significant quantity, to package, transport, stock and sell? No way. Economies of scale.

Why billions for insufficient energy sources, when there is already fusion energy research?

Because choice is good. Because those "insufficient" energy sources have, at the very least, niche roles which they are quite adept at filling. Because reliable fusion generated electricity is not something we have now, in fact we don't even know when we will ever have it. Obviously, you haven't studied the alternatives of power, or studied marketing in general for that matter. Regardless of how "good" you find nuclear power, there's plenty of alternatives which are also useful. You've proclaimed a false dichotomy; t's not a choice between coal and nuclear at all.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because people don't work for free? Because research and development costs money? Because marketing to spread the word of the product is expensive?


To produce? Maybe. To buy in significant quantity, to package, transport, stock and sell? No way. Economies of scale.

Why billions for insufficient energy sources, when there is already fusion energy research?

It's interesting to note that the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had a cleanup budget of $20bn, while ITER's ten year initial budget was a mere $13bn

[Socialist Czechia]

Why billions for insufficient energy sources, when there is already fusion energy research?

Because choice is good. Because those "insufficient" energy sources have, at the very least, niche roles which they are quite adept at filling. Because reliable fusion generated electricity is not something we have now, in fact we don't even know when we will ever have it. Obviously, you haven't studied the alternatives of power, or studied marketing in general for that matter. Regardless of how "good" you find nuclear power, there's plenty of alternatives which are also useful. You've proclaimed a false dichotomy; t's not a choice between coal and nuclear at all.

Yes, it is. These 'alternatives' you promotes are not sufficient enough to excuse their price. You need energy cheap enough to not ruin state or it's people or both, and sufficient enough to secure energy not only for present use, but for future one too.
And now, today, you have only two options, fossil sources, be it coal, oil or methane and nuclear power plants, very expensive, true, but it's stable and huge source enough to accept risks.

Research is very important, but no one should waste this money to solar or wind energy. Every billion from any fund, every talented scientist should focus on controlled fusion power - that's humanity's only reliable option for the future.

"Renewable energy sources" are just capitalist scheme to make some people rich and many more people poor.

[The Lycan Empire]

Well, it depends on how the environmentalist uses the fossil fuel products.

Now if they abuse it and use it non-stop while still chewing out people for "killing the Earth" then they are indeed hypocrites.

If they use it hesitantly and keep the amount they use to a minimum then I see where their argument is coming from. We, as Americans, consume the most fossil fuels in the world. People in third-world countries may not have access to fossil-fuels the way we do so they HAVE to live off the land, which people used to do so long ago.

Environmentalists are hypocrites, in a way, but they also try to warn us about our consumption of these resources.
One day man-kind will run out of fossil-fuels, just hope you are not there to see what will happen...

[Bombadil]

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument.

The position may be valid (I certainly believe it is), but the conduct is inconsistent with it.
I don't understand the Tu Quoque "fallacy" on this basis.

A person who makes a claim and acts inconsistently with that claim makes their own claim invalid, but not the claim itself.
This is why I disapprove of naming fallacies and have stopped doing so myself. It just turns into Fallacious Top Trumps, trying to shut down a criticism because it vaguely matches a fallacy as listed on Wikipedia or an Internet Argument Reference Database.

Hypocrisy is a valid criticism of a person making a point, if demonstrated.

So you've tried to educate me on the meaning of fallacies, and on not only showing, but admitting, you don't understand them you then say you don't believe in using fallacy terminology..

I really don't care about being wrong, admitting I'm wrong is to accept I'm learning something, and learning something is good.

I wish that was the spirit of NSG. I can tell from your posts that you're smart enough, I have been wrong more times than I'm right on NSG, and that's a good thing, possibly the greatest thing about the connective nature of the Internet and forums.. that I can learn how small my knowledge of the world is.

I'm not saying you're wrong per se, I get your point.

Anyhoo..

[Imperializt Russia]

Fallacies have a place, and they serve a purpose.
Ever since websites of lists of fallacies became popular on NSG, you could probably just play a game of guessing how long until someone cited it to shut down an argument. Hence why I no longer call them out myself.

I've probably read the word "strawman" more in the last six months than the previous three years of NSG.

This is probably just due to my sporadic forays into NSG - I only pick out topics from the Latest Topics bar. So by definition, I'm always in an active thread so I probably just happen to see it more inadvertently.
But that's what I felt I noticed.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Because choice is good. Because those "insufficient" energy sources have, at the very least, niche roles which they are quite adept at filling. Because reliable fusion generated electricity is not something we have now, in fact we don't even know when we will ever have it. Obviously, you haven't studied the alternatives of power, or studied marketing in general for that matter. Regardless of how "good" you find nuclear power, there's plenty of alternatives which are also useful. You've proclaimed a false dichotomy; t's not a choice between coal and nuclear at all.

Yes, it is.

No, it is not. Quite obviously, or we wouldn't have windfarms, or solar panels on roofs or flood mitigation and irrigation dams that handily double as hydroelectric power plants. Or geothermal power or wave power or...

These 'alternatives' you promotes are not sufficient enough to excuse their price.

You need energy cheap enough to not ruin state or it's people or both, and sufficient enough to secure energy not only for present use, but for future one too.

Yet you advocate nuclear, even though it's more expensive per watt hour than most renewables.

And now, today, you have only two options, fossil sources, be it coal, oil or methane and nuclear power plants, very expensive, true, but it's stable and huge source enough to accept risks.

Research is very important, but no one should waste this money to solar or wind energy. Every billion from any fund, every talented scientist should focus on controlled fusion power - that's humanity's only reliable option for the future.

"Renewable energy sources" are just capitalist scheme to make some people rich and many more people poor.

I've seen people be biased about phones, computers, cars, sports teams, hell even tv shows, but never somebody biased to this degree about power production. Half of this you've made up yourself, the other half is an unholy mix of propaganda from the anti-cc movement and the coal industry.

[Imperializt Russia]

Kindly source that graph, date included.

Never mind, I found the article.
The US, France, UK and Australia seem to be able to put nuclear in broadly the same price range as most other energies, whereas this apparently German study (from four years ago) seems to put it higher than many sources.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Kindly source that graph, date included.

.... it's a table

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

This isn't a source for the table I posted, a source on that is not available which I didn't know when I screencut, however this report preaches near identical estimates.

[Socialist Czechia]

As someone who studied sociology and economy, I assure you, you can do whatever you want with statistics to prove almost any point. Plus, there are many, for example local factors, which affects: Capital costs, Plant operating costs and External costs, important to get final price.

Shortly, nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are included in the operating costs.

If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

(source:OECD/IEA-NEA, 2010, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - US cents/kWh)

Technology region or country At 10% discount rate At 5% discount rate
Nuclear OECD Europe 8.3-13.7 5.0-8.2
China 4.4-5.5 3.0-3.6
Black coal with CCS OECD Europe 11.0 8.5
Brown coal with CCS OECD Europe 9.5-14.3 6.8-9.3
CCGT with CCS OECD Europe 11.8 9.8
Large hydro-electric OECD Europe 14.0-45.9 7.4-23.1
China: 3 Gorges 5.2 2.9
China: other 2.3-3.3 1.2-1.7
Onshore wind OECD Europe 12.2-23.0 9.0-14.6
China 7.2-12.6 5.1-8.9
Offshore wind OECD Europe 18.7-26.1 13.8-18.8
Solar photovoltaic OECD Europe 38.8-61.6 28.7-41.0
China 18.7-28.3 12.3-18.6

[Imperializt Russia]

Kindly source that graph, date included.

.... it's a table

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

This isn't a source for the table I posted, a source on that is not available which I didn't know when I screencut, however this report preaches near identical estimates.

Except it doesn't.
The Energy Information Administration came to an average pre-subsidy cost per MWh of $96 (note this is for advanced nuclear).
The German study which builds that table arrives at 107-124 Euros per MWh (allegedly for regular nuclear, or regular and advanced nuclear).

In 2012, 96USD would have fetched you about 75EUR.
http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=US ... &year=2012

As such, the German study reaches hugely greater costs than the American study.

[Keyboard Warriors]

.... it's a table

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

This isn't a source for the table I posted, a source on that is not available which I didn't know when I screencut, however this report preaches near identical estimates.

Except it doesn't.
The Energy Information Administration came to an average pre-subsidy cost per MWh of $96 (note this is for advanced nuclear).
The German study which builds that table arrives at 107-124 Euros per MWh (allegedly for regular nuclear, or regular and advanced nuclear).

In 2012, 96USD would have fetched you about 75EUR.
http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=US ... &year=2012

As such, the German study reaches hugely greater costs than the American study.

Except it does because the point was how nuclear energy compares to other sources, not how much nuclear energy costs. These are system specific estimates, not differences in opinion

[Imperializt Russia]

Except it doesn't.
The Energy Information Administration came to an average pre-subsidy cost per MWh of $96 (note this is for advanced nuclear).
The German study which builds that table arrives at 107-124 Euros per MWh (allegedly for regular nuclear, or regular and advanced nuclear).

In 2012, 96USD would have fetched you about 75EUR.
http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=US ... &year=2012

As such, the German study reaches hugely greater costs than the American study.

Except it does because the point was how nuclear energy compares to other sources, not how much nuclear energy costs. These are system specific estimates, not differences in opinion

For the situations that the US (specifically California) and Germany face.

Given that Germany and the US (California) do not face identical situations, they might as well be differences in opinion.

[Norstal]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

You can't be an environmentalist AND be pro-nuclear power?

Who decided this? Jesus?

[Imperializt Russia]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

You can't be an environmentalist AND be pro-nuclear power?

Who decided this? Jesus?

Major green movements. Many of them started as anti-nuclear groups and can't shake that motion.

[Kincoboh]

I... I don't see how eating meat is relevant

It's actually extremely relevant. The meat industry is one of the worst polluters.

You can't be an environmentalist AND be pro-nuclear power?

Who decided this? Jesus?

Major green movements. Many of them started as anti-nuclear groups and can't shake that motion.

This is true - but their criticism is valid in a way. They have radioactive pollution that can't really go anywhere, and the waste can be used for weapons. There are several alternatives to building fission power plants, such as hydroelectric. Only problem is that it can't be built everywhere. But you're right - nuclear must be seen as a viable alternative to the fossil fuel plants and it is disappointing that many environmental groups can't see that.
Fusion is a different thing entirely, and I hope sometime soon that we'll be able to start switching from fission to fusion. I just read an article recently that said that Lougheed Martin came out with a huge breakthrough with fusion power and are looking to build a prototype.

[Pope Joan]

What most bothers me is when people who are invested in solar viciously attack those who are invested in wind.

All because they are hungering for the same federal support dollars.

This cancer has thoroughly infected our local MoveOn, for instance.

Get it together, people. You are becoming a laughingstock.

[Imperializt Russia]

It is not a breakthrough.
In any way.

They're begging for investors. The claim that they have "solved fusion" is bullshit. Fusion has its own radioactive material problems with significant irradiation of internal components.

Additionally, it's very easy to prevent nuclear material being used for nuclear weapons - have your plants inspected and certified by the IAEA. Have a reprocessing programme. Put it in long-term underground storage in sealed drums.

[Liriena]

This is like the critic of Occupy in London who noted that they'd been seen drinking Starbucks, like you can't decry the worst excesses of capitalism AND enjoy a coffee at the same time.

It's not all a zero-sum game.

Indeed.

[The Sotoan Union]

Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

This. What's the merit of stuff that people don't want to be accessible and easily navigable to the point more people can adapt to their lifestyles?

It's ridiculous that producing organic food is actually less expensive, but they sell it by thrice, fourfold the price of stuff that isn't labeled as such.

Green washing is bad.

There are many reason why organic food is expensive. Don't immediately jump to assuming it must be done for a greedy profit.

[Tule]

It's bit of a dilemma really.

Western lifestyle is unsustainable and environmentally harmful, often to a point where living sustainably can be quite difficult and make someone be seen as a bit of a weirdo.

You can't really buy any food that isn't packed in some petrochemical-based plastic. In man countries you can't use electricity that isn't produced by burning fossil fuels. In many developed countries you can't hold a job without access to a car.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

You have to be, nobody can cut their fossil fuel use down to zero at a whim.
If we keep calling anyone who isn't perfectly sustainable a hypocrite we'll never become sustainable, because it's not a step that can be taken all at once.

Bad OP! No fair-trade coffee for you!