No doubt which side I am on, but the biggest problem I see with environmentalists is they too often let the perfect become the enemy of the good, or the better.
Maybe in a perfect world, we would have built high speed electric trains instead of a gazillion miles of interstates, and we would have solar panels on every building in America, and lots of windmill farms on the open prairie, and lots of battery storage with a great transmission system making it all work efficiently without pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere.
But we didn't, and we don't, and none of the above is going to get built in the present climate in any relatively short period of time under any reasonable scenario. So what is the next best alternative? I would vote for nuclear. Three Mile Island was almost 50 years ago and a big nothing burger compared to Chernobyl, for example. Now some companies are working on very small nuclear plants which can be built for a fraction of the cost, and much faster. Technology is not market ready yet, but smart people are working on it.
Yet the official position of the Sierra Club, to name one, is anti nuke. Sure, nuclear has its potential harms and its shortcomings, but so does every other form of energy. Personally, I kind of like transportation, AC, and heating, and cooking in my own home. Would lot rather see nuclear installations than a shit ton more coal fired plants. You can't just be against everything, except the perfect ideal scenario, or people quit listening to you.
Great local example is the Fayette Alliance ("FA"), whose avowed goal is to preserve the iconic horse farms and agricultural land surrounding Lexington. This is my hometown, and I 100% agree with the goal. But I also have kinda gotten used to having a home and a place to shop. Problem is the FA (and Bluegrass Tomorrow) literally opposes every new project proposed, if they take any position at all. I can't remember them ever supporting a new residential or commercial development. What they will tell you in every instance is "we are NOT opposed to all development; it is just that THIS particular development has too many problems . . . so we will naturally oppose it publicly and lobby the government to see that it is not built." I saw a brand new hospital development halted in Woodford County using this exact strategy, while the old hospital there is a pile of crap. I retired so don't know the status of the hospital project at the moment, but BG tomorrow certainly was not in favor.
Maybe in a perfect world, we would have built high speed electric trains instead of a gazillion miles of interstates, and we would have solar panels on every building in America, and lots of windmill farms on the open prairie, and lots of battery storage with a great transmission system making it all work efficiently without pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere.
But we didn't, and we don't, and none of the above is going to get built in the present climate in any relatively short period of time under any reasonable scenario. So what is the next best alternative? I would vote for nuclear. Three Mile Island was almost 50 years ago and a big nothing burger compared to Chernobyl, for example. Now some companies are working on very small nuclear plants which can be built for a fraction of the cost, and much faster. Technology is not market ready yet, but smart people are working on it.
Yet the official position of the Sierra Club, to name one, is anti nuke. Sure, nuclear has its potential harms and its shortcomings, but so does every other form of energy. Personally, I kind of like transportation, AC, and heating, and cooking in my own home. Would lot rather see nuclear installations than a shit ton more coal fired plants. You can't just be against everything, except the perfect ideal scenario, or people quit listening to you.
Great local example is the Fayette Alliance ("FA"), whose avowed goal is to preserve the iconic horse farms and agricultural land surrounding Lexington. This is my hometown, and I 100% agree with the goal. But I also have kinda gotten used to having a home and a place to shop. Problem is the FA (and Bluegrass Tomorrow) literally opposes every new project proposed, if they take any position at all. I can't remember them ever supporting a new residential or commercial development. What they will tell you in every instance is "we are NOT opposed to all development; it is just that THIS particular development has too many problems . . . so we will naturally oppose it publicly and lobby the government to see that it is not built." I saw a brand new hospital development halted in Woodford County using this exact strategy, while the old hospital there is a pile of crap. I retired so don't know the status of the hospital project at the moment, but BG tomorrow certainly was not in favor.
