(03-03-2019 12:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I’m not so concerned about saving the planet.

What does interest me is reducing demand for oil so that prices fall reducing the transfer of wealth to nations that are a pain and hostile to western liberal democracy.

Even more vital, reducing the geopolitical significance of the Middle East thus reducing the need for the US to try to keep it stable and in the zone of defense

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

Environmentalism isn't necessarily bad. Saving species and promoting healthy ecosystems are good things. But now that acid rain and unsustainable hunting practices have ceased to be a threat in the USA, the environmental movement has little left to accomplish in this country.

I don't have a problem with environmentalism. I have a problem with feel-good environmentalism, and that's what environmentalism today is. It's the reason people pat themselves on the back for driving electric cars that are charged by coal power and for banning plastic straws that don't make up 1% of 1% of ocean plastic. It's also the Paris Climate Accord which basically wasn't going to change how any country approached climate.

The issue of nuclear power is the worst example. The evidence couldn't be clearer that renewables make electricity costs go up and don't reduce emissions. Remember how greenies used to gush about Germany's renewable energy investments? Their emissions have flat-lined, while France and Sweden (two countries with a high percentage of energy coming from nuclear) look better. But no, let's abandon objectively the safest source of energy because "Fukushima! Radiation! Baaaaaaaad!".

BTW, Mike Schellenberger (author of the article in the OP) has a good article shooting down the arguments about nuclear waste.