Why I Vote Green

[Freddy]

Solar farms seem to me like the type of thinking that could only come from utility companies. Let's dedicate a whole bunch of land to only one thing and generate power miles away from where anyone uses it. And that way we can keep it all under our control. You're right, it's a lot like hydro.

Rooftop solar seems like a better way to go. You're taking space that is already wasted and turning it into something useful. You're generating power where it's needed and you already have power lines running to the site. Utilities aren't crazy about it because they don't like to lose control to the homeowners. Sux for them.

Personally, I like the idea of solar shingles. Everyone has to replace their roof sooner or later and as the technology gets adopted, the prices will drop.

.

Then adopt it for yourself. Like I've said, this shift to renewable won't happen unless everyone dose it for themselves. All I can see is a whole lot of people who want someone else to do it for them.

[segnosaur]

Segnosaur what is wrong with urine? It's a natural source of nitrogen, like manure. I'll bet you're just shocked that vegetables grow in manure aren't you?

My mention of urine was meant to be a flippant remark.

The point was, too many people jump no the band wagon and say "X is wrong", without understanding X. Just like people claim "artificial pesticides are bad" without understanding them. If you told people "your produce was doused in urine" they would probably avoid it.

Perhaps you'd prefer the vegetables grown on the massive agricultural farm grown in clay so concreted and hard that a tractor couldn't make a dent in it, that the only thing added to them for 30 years was massive amounts of pesticides that my own manager the person responsible for producing the food said that "he wouldn't that sh^t"?

Why should I care about what your manager thinks? He sounds like he has no understanding of the science.

And why worry about "massive amounts of pesticides" on non-organic farms? Organic farming uses pesticides too... The difference is because organic pesticides are less effective, more must be used.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

By the way, we still haven't heard why its relevant that your preference for working on an organic farm means that yields for organic farms match those of non-organic farms.

[Army Guy]

I've helpfully removed the word socialist since it's not a word I use to describe myself. And since you're clearly using it as an epithet, it could get you kicked. You're welcome.

I've never heard anyone say that we're under no threat although I have heard it said (and I agree) that law-and-order types like the Conservative government inflate and hype the danger to support their regressive policies. Also, the more we participate in pointless and destructive exercises like the the wars in the middle east, the more of a target we become.

It seems to be the new thing these days , the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement.....Has the any of those nations directly attacked Canada, because that would go with the other old thing that has been floating around here, What threats does Canada have.....They say none.... So what is it, do we have threats or is that all right wing hype.....or left wing hype quick hide your head they won't notice us....

[-1=e^ipi]

Personally, I like the idea of solar shingles. Everyone has to replace their roof sooner or later and as the technology gets adopted, the prices will drop.

Are you one of these 'solar roadway' people as well?

I'll point out a few things:

1. Solar panels are more effective if you angle them towards the sun and have the angle change throughout the day.

2. Solar panels are more effective if they aren't covered in grit, you need to clean them.

3. Solar panels might not be very effective at keeping out the rain to make sensible shingles.

2. Energy storage to deal with variability in output remains an issue, there is a limit of what % of your power can be feasibly solar due to variability.

[ReeferMadness]

It seems to be the new thing these days , the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement.....Has the any of those nations directly attacked Canada, because that would go with the other old thing that has been floating around here, What threats does Canada have.....They say none.... So what is it, do we have threats or is that all right wing hype.....or left wing hype quick hide your head they won't notice us....

So, I'm not a military historian. But Gwynne Dyer is. And here is his analysis.

The purpose of major terrorist activities directed at the West, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS videos, is not to “cow” or “intimidate” Western countries. It is to get those countries to bomb Muslim countries or, better yet, invade them. The terrorists want to come to power in Muslim countries, not in Canada or Britain or the U.S. And the best way to establish your revolutionary credentials and recruit local supporters is to get the West to attack you.

The “Global Terrorism Index,” published annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace, reported last week that fatalities due to terrorism have risen fivefold in the 13 years since the 9/11 attacks, despite the US-led “war on terror” that has spent $4.4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and anti-terrorist operations elsewhere. But it’s not really “despite” those wars. It’s largely because of them.

And how do you deal with terrorism?

You have to deal with the particular grievances that obsess specific ethnic, religious or political groups.

And above all, keep foreigners out of the process. Their interventions always make matters worse.

Which is why the terrorists love them so much.

[ReeferMadness]

Are you one of these 'solar roadway' people as well?

I'll point out a few things:

1. Solar panels are more effective if you angle them towards the sun and have the angle change throughout the day.

2. Solar panels are more effective if they aren't covered in grit, you need to clean them.

3. Solar panels might not be very effective at keeping out the rain to make sensible shingles.

2. Energy storage to deal with variability in output remains an issue, there is a limit of what % of your power can be feasibly solar due to variability.

Well, I think you should immediately write Forbes Magazine and Dow and give them the benefit of your brilliance. It's clear that you don't need any links or references because you just know everything.

[Army Guy]

So, I'm not a military historian. But Gwynne Dyer is. And here is his analysis.

And how do you deal with terrorism?

ReeferMadness:

I'm actually a fan of Gwynne Dyer earlier works, and respect his opinion just not in this case...i think his theory in this case has huge holes in it....and i'll explain. he assumes that all terrorist want the wests involvement to boost their cause to gather up the locals, in some massive recruitment drive....and Dyer pigion holes everyone of them into the same hole....thats not the case...

Do you think the Taliban wanted the direct US involvement in Afghanistan, they had the world by the balls, and no one wanted to bother them, sure there was a few sanctions , the world gasped in horror as they destroyed historic artifacts.....but other than that they had everything they wanted......and everything to loss with direct US intervention......they did not need any more recruitment, they had nothing to gain from the outside of the world they had everything, and where living life , according to their twisted version of islam.....

Bin ladin and his twisted apes....they were bent on some version of history, they had to punish the US for past aggressions ......They knew the consequences before they planned and attacked the US, he did'nt do it to attract thousands to his cause he did it because of revenge, out of hatred....explain to me how you adopt a policy for Bin Ladin on dyers specific things to do......as laid out below.....He wanted to punish the US, there was no negotiations, dealing with grievances, he wanted the US to pay for what they had done....So how does one deal with the fact that the US had just been dealt the deaths of 3000 of it's people.....if diplomatic options were already closed.....do you turn the other cheek....because dyers theory is telling us to do that very thing.....

My piont is we are not dealing with yesterdays terrorist groups, groups that may have numbered a couple hundred at best....Bader minhoff gang, was a joke....compared to ISIL.....IRA had serious numbers but they did not cause the terror we see today in Syria.......

You have to deal with the particular grievances that obsess specific ethnic, religious or political groups.

Your sources theory does not explain how to deal with todays terrorism, Nor are they interested in talking with the the west....for anything....so with diplomatic solutions off the table.....that leaves what....we turn our heads, and refused to deal with the problem....that includes dealing with the refugees as well.....or we take matters into groups like NATO, or the UN and take direct action to solve it......

I'll ask my question again....the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement..Who has made a target of Canada ? and what threat are they ?

[G Huxley]

Sego: "Why should I care about what your manager thinks? He sounds like he has no understanding of the science."

My manager is the guy who ran a massive completely anti-organic agricultural operation.

If he has no understanding of science as you claim then this goes against your own case.

Regarding telling people that their food is doused with urine is false. You don't spray urine on the leaves like they do with pesticides. Urine and manure are often used as part of the soil that they grow in. It's how the eco-system works.

Urine and manure can also be non organic btw, depending on what is fed into the animals that produce it.

Edited September 5, 2015 by G Huxley

[ReeferMadness]

ReeferMadness:

I'm actually a fan of Gwynne Dyer earlier works, and respect his opinion..

Good. So do I.

.i think his theory in this case has huge holes in it....and i'll explain. he assumes that all terrorist want the wests involvement to boost their cause to gather up the locals, in some massive recruitment drive....and Dyer pigion holes everyone of them into the same hole....thats not the case...

Do you think the Taliban wanted the direct US involvement in Afghanistan, they had the world by the balls, and no one wanted to bother them, sure there was a few sanctions , the world gasped in horror as they destroyed historic artifacts.....but other than that they had everything they wanted......and everything to loss with direct US intervention......they did not need any more recruitment, they had nothing to gain from the outside of the world they had everything, and where living life , according to their twisted version of islam.....

Bin Laden was not Taliban. He was Al Qaeda. He had a ragtag army in the middle of nowhere. Look at what ISIS is trying to do right now. They're trying to control the entire Muslim world. That's what bin Laden probably wanted.

Bin ladin and his twisted apes....they were bent on some version of history, they had to punish the US for past aggressions ......They knew the consequences before they planned and attacked the US, he did'nt do it to attract thousands to his cause he did it because of revenge, out of hatred....explain to me how you adopt a policy for Bin Ladin on dyers specific things to do......as laid out below.....He wanted to punish the US, there was no negotiations, dealing with grievances, he wanted the US to pay for what they had done....So how does one deal with the fact that the US had just been dealt the deaths of 3000 of it's people.....if diplomatic options were already closed.....do you turn the other cheek....because dyers theory is telling us to do that very thing.....

If you think Dyers was advising that, you'll need to point out where. I can't speak for Dyers but I believe he would say that the smart thing to do would have been to treat it as a crime instead of a war.

My piont is we are not dealing with yesterdays terrorist groups, groups that may have numbered a couple hundred at best....Bader minhoff gang, was a joke....compared to ISIL.....IRA had serious numbers but they did not cause the terror we see today in Syria.......

You need to go back and look at the history. It was the US and Pakistan that helped create the problem by arming Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Then 911 happened and the US invaded Afghanistan. Then, bizarrely, the US decided to attack Iraq. And with each action, terrorism continued to get worse and worse.

If the British bombed and treated Northern Ireland as the west treated Afghanistan, then maybe you would see what the IRA was capable of. You don't fight terrorism by bombing the sh*t out of a country. You fight it by creating an environment where the local people can resolve their differences and build a peaceful society.

Your sources theory does not explain how to deal with todays terrorism, Nor are they interested in talking with the the west....for anything....so with diplomatic solutions off the table.....that leaves what....we turn our heads, and refused to deal with the problem....that includes dealing with the refugees as well.....or we take matters into groups like NATO, or the UN and take direct action to solve it......I'll ask my question again....the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement..Who has made a target of Canada ? and what threat are they ?

So. The war on terror has gone on almost 3 times as long as WWII, has killed hundreds of thousands of people and, according to Dyer, has cost the US 4.4 trillion dollars. And there is no end in sight. Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

And Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Ottawa gunman, claimed that his actions were retaliation for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But more to the point, why should the burden of proof be on those of us who want peaceful solutions? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on people whose first instinct to every international problem is to start shooting? Do you have any proof that the war against ISIS is going to work any better than the rest of the war on terror? Or is this just a never-ending conflict?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....You need to go back and look at the history. It was the US and Pakistan that helped create the problem by arming Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Then 911 happened and the US invaded Afghanistan. Then, bizarrely, the US decided to attack Iraq. And with each action, terrorism continued to get worse and worse.

The U.S. attacked Iraq before invading Afghanistan, irrespective of Bin Laden or "terrorism". Long before 9/11, it was U.S. policy and public law to execute regime change in Iraq.

[On Guard for Thee]

The U.S. attacked Iraq before invading Afghanistan, irrespective of Bin Laden or "terrorism". Long before 9/11, it was U.S. policy and public law to execute regime change in Iraq.

And now we have ISIS in the wake. Thanks Uncle Sam.

[ReeferMadness]

And if a lot of people believed in a flat earth, they might demand representation in parliament too. But if that party said "We are all about science" then I would rightly view them as idiots.

This type of arrogance not only makes for bad public policy, it makes for bad science. Science does not present a black and white world but rather a world of probabilities. Anything we think we know today could be found to be wrong tomorrow.

Based on past history, I can confidently predict that many of the prevailing views of today's science will turn out to be incomplete, misdirected or, in some cases, just plain wrong. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of medicine where there is still so much to be learned. So, this approach of browbeating and insulting people who don't see things like you do is unfounded, even in science. And even if the science were more mature, people have a right to decide what is best for them.

Good public policy is informed by science but not dictated by science. Policy deciders should take a risk management approach and consider the risks/benefits and probabilities to the public of a given approach. But, to the greatest possible extent, that shouldn't preclude personal choice.

Examples:

In the case of climate change, science has determined that there is a significant likelihood that bad things are going to happen and many of the scenarios suggest that the outcomes could be pretty severe. Prudent public policy would be to pursue policies that would be to curtail C02 emissions in a way that didn't seriously impact quality of life. The thing about global warming is that it's a public atmosphere so this is not just a matter of personal choice.

In the case of fluoridation, cavities are not a communicable disease. So, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether the perceived benefits are worth the perceived risks. That's called informed consent.

I know people who are anti-vaccination and are into all sorts of therapy that I consider to be nutty. But a big part of the reason this community exists (and seems to be growing) is that science isn't humble about its own failings and has not been forthcoming about its own limitations. Medical science can describe its medications as "safe and effective" but too often, practical experience is that it is at best one of them and at worst, neither.

You can't bully this group out of existence. A better approach would be to engage them in an adult discussion and try to take a more risk-managed approach to alternative therapies.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the details in your post because of thread drift. Each of the areas is big enough for its own thread. I can discuss them on separate threads - but only if you're going to bring an open mind.

[ReeferMadness]

The U.S. attacked Iraq before invading Afghanistan, irrespective of Bin Laden or "terrorism". Long before 9/11, it was U.S. policy and public law to execute regime change in Iraq.

Yeah. And look how well that turned out.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah. And look how well that turned out.

Turned out fine....Saddam is long gone. Canadian approval not required. Glad I could help you get the facts right.

Even the Green Party leader is....American.

Edited September 5, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Turned out fine....Saddam is long gone. Canadian approval not required. Glad I could help you get the facts right.

Even the Green Party leader is....American.

Turned out fine? Wow, that's a stretch even for you!

[ReeferMadness]

Turned out fine....Saddam is long gone.

Huh

I guess everyone can go home then.

[bush_cheney2004]

Huh

I guess everyone can go home then.

Do whatever you wish...vote for that 'merkin Green Party leader if you want. If U.S. foreign policy wants your opinion...we'll ask for it.

[waldo]

Do whatever you wish...vote for that 'merkin Green Party leader if you want. If U.S. foreign policy wants your opinion...we'll ask for it.

and if a Canadian political discussion board, and more pointedly a Canadian Politics, Federal Politics sub-forum wants your opinion...

[waldo]

Turned out fine? Wow, that's a stretch even for you!

no worries... apparently the "smart Bush" is on deck... Jeb "the next one" Bush!

[On Guard for Thee]

no worries... apparently the "smart Bush" is on deck... Jeb "the next one" Bush!

I guess that's what comes up after the sideshow concludes.

[ReeferMadness]

no worries... apparently the "smart Bush" is on deck... Jeb "the next one" Bush!

The smart one was the one that only lasted one term.

Every time I think about the bushes, I can't help but remember this movie clip from Smokey and the Bandit.

[Army Guy]

Good. So do I.

Bin Laden was not Taliban. He was Al Qaeda. He had a ragtag army in the middle of nowhere. Look at what ISIS is trying to do right now. They're trying to control the entire Muslim world. That's what bin Laden probably wanted.

If you think Dyers was advising that, you'll need to point out where. I can't speak for Dyers but I believe he would say that the smart thing to do would have been to treat it as a crime instead of a war.

You need to go back and look at the history. It was the US and Pakistan that helped create the problem by arming Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Then 911 happened and the US invaded Afghanistan. Then, bizarrely, the US decided to attack Iraq. And with each action, terrorism continued to get worse and worse.

If the British bombed and treated Northern Ireland as the west treated Afghanistan, then maybe you would see what the IRA was capable of. You don't fight terrorism by bombing the sh*t out of a country. You fight it by creating an environment where the local people can resolve their differences and build a peaceful society.

So. The war on terror has gone on almost 3 times as long as WWII, has killed hundreds of thousands of people and, according to Dyer, has cost the US 4.4 trillion dollars. And there is no end in sight. Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

And Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Ottawa gunman, claimed that his actions were retaliation for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But more to the point, why should the burden of proof be on those of us who want peaceful solutions? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on people whose first instinct to every international problem is to start shooting? Do you have any proof that the war against ISIS is going to work any better than the rest of the war on terror? Or is this just a never-ending conflict?

I never claimed Bin Ladin was Taliban, that is why i described them in two different paras...Bin Ladin had a huge group, that were used by the taliban as their strongmen...He had all the fighters he could handle...

Below is what Dyer is advising, With the Taliban they already had everything they wanted, they did not want direct contact with the west, they already had what they wanted with nothing to gain, and everything to lose...

You have to deal with the particular grievances that obsess specific ethnic, religious or political groups.

In the taliban's case dyers thought process does not apply does not apply as written below here.

The purpose of major terrorist activities directed at the West, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS videos, is not to “cow” or “intimidate” Western countries. It is to get those countries to bomb Muslim countries or, better yet, invade them. The terrorists want to come to power in Muslim countries, not in Canada or Britain or the U.S. And the best way to establish your revolutionary credentials and recruit local supporters is to get the West to attack you.

In Bin Laden's case he was not interested in anything except revenge, he wanted the US and the west to pay for all the things they had done, he did not want any discussions with the west or the US, he wanted to bring them pain, Dyer suggest diplomatic resolution and how to go about it, but if talking is off the table how does a nation solve the problem of finding whom was responsible for the attacks, and bringing him and his organization to justice, it would leave the military option as the only on that was viable..

Which my point not all groups can be neatly wrapped up in his theory, or course of action. i would there are times when his course should be used...and there are others that boots on the ground maybe the only option....

You need to go back and look at the history. It was the US and Pakistan that helped create the problem by arming Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Then 911 happened and the US invaded Afghanistan. Then, bizarrely, the US decided to attack Iraq. And with each action, terrorism continued to get worse and worse.

while bin laden was there , the US did not single him out and arm him they armed the group he was involved with, and many more...Bin Ladin was not in charge of anything at the time....I think that has already been pointed out Iraq was in the works well before Afghanistan came about....

You also have to remember the the majority of Afghan citizens did not support the Taliban or Bin Ladins thugs, and where happy to see them go. I won't argue that coalition military action there drove some into joining the terrorists, but that is a double edge sword, the taliban and Bin Ladins buddies killed many more Afghans than the coalition ever did....and drove many Afghan citizens to helping coalition forces fight the taliban....or joining the Afghan armed forces.....They are still not very popular in the country, yes they enjoy the support of thousands, but the country has millions..

If the British bombed and treated Northern Ireland as the west treated Afghanistan, then maybe you would see what the IRA was capable of. You don't fight terrorism by bombing the sh*t out of a country. You fight it by creating an environment where the local people can resolve their differences and build a peaceful society.

Other than the bombing, British forces were heavily engaged with fighting the IRA every where in the country, including in the towns, cities etc....they had more troops and equipment involved than their commitment to Afghanistan.....and while that did end, with eventual talks and a peace agreement....both sides suffer great losses..which i'm sure was one of the reasons that they sat down and began talking....

So. The war on terror has gone on almost 3 times as long as WWII, has killed hundreds of thousands of people and, according to Dyer, has cost the US 4.4 trillion dollars. And there is no end in sight. Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

To be honest with you, once a nation agrees to take up arms, both sides have already lost....It is that or let them have what they want , when they want it...sooner or later a line has to be drawn....the groups like the Taliban, ISIL they want a place where they can rule over it occupants through fear and terror, a place where they can practice their own twisted version of Islam....and they don't care how they get it.....So like the picture of that boy washed up on the beach, there are many images of the crimes these groups have committed, that drive other nations to say that is the line in the sand.....

thousand of innocent civilians have died, millions have been displaced from there homes in fear of their lives....and many nations are tired of war and it's commitments, so they are now moving that line....it's like the crimes these terrorist commit do not count, all that counts right now is saving those running for their lives.....we will be picking these people up for years to come, until ISIL has what it wants....ISIL and any other group that decides they can redraw the lines on a map through force and terror....Is that a winning strategy.....

But more to the point, why should the burden of proof be on those of us who want peaceful solutions? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on people whose first instinct to every international problem is to start shooting? Do you have any proof that the war against ISIS is going to work any better than the rest of the war on terror? Or is this just a never-ending conflict?

You know as well as i do, that there are no guarantee that anything will work....what i do know is one day the refugees will ask, why did you not help us....military action alone will not solve this, it needs to be a concentrated effort of aid, delivery of that aid to the people, security of the people rebuilding their nation, education, getting them providing for themselves.....it takes generations to accomplish....history has shown us that with Cyprus, and Turkey.

[WIP]

Since when did facts become propaganda?

Well, at least since powerful vested interests...like the entire nuclear power industry - dependent on government for legal, regulatory and financial support...were able to support cottage industries that carefully write up and disseminate the facts they want to present to the public.

I think the key word here is potential. Nuclear engineers and scientists tend to be smart, and have a general idea of what they're doing. They know what the potential dangers are, and they know how to build safeguards to limit the danger. And since nuclear plants are highly centralized, their construction/operation can be closely monitored. They've been running nuclear plants for decades in the western world. The relative lack of deaths should be a good indication that the "potential" for risk is not being met.

All it takes is one scientist/engineer/technician who isn't doing his job for a variety of reasons, including covering up mistakes and exhaustion (Three Mile Island case), and that will unravel all of the good work the rest of the team does.

But, as in many operations, what I read of the Fukushima Meltdown and the corruption and incompetence of government and TEPCO officials, tells me that there is the same phenomena as many other operations: people at the top of the pyramid have risen to the top through combinations of luck, personality and bullshit, and are able to skate by...looking like they know what they're doing while relying on assistance from useful underlings. The great problem with Fukushima, is that soon after the disaster there was a change in government, with a right wing pro-business Neoconservative administration taking power, and immediately introducing legislation censoring speech and disseminating any negative information about the situation at Fukushima and even about the incompetence at TEPCO itself as 'unpatriotic speech.' So, getting real useful information has been as difficult...possibly worse than getting information about Chernobyl 30 years ago.

A quick example of incompetence at the highest levels would be an electric utility company: having full awareness that they are functioning in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world, yet allowing old GE reactors to continue functioning that have no automatic deadman switch capacity to drop carbon control rods into the reactors in case of power failure.

A flimsy excuse for the flooded backup generators was that they could not have foreseen such a huge tsunami hitting the coast....which makes little sense considering the high waves that have wreaked havoc on Japan many times within historical record!

What we are learning in bits and pieces in the years after, is that a nearby power station was saved from the same calamity by quick thinking staff and management which gerry-rigged a long hookup in the hours after the storm, to get emergency power to their reactors before they suffered the same catastrophe. In other words, if more mistakes were made, Fukushima would have been even worse than it has turned out so far....but so far is the operative word here!

They have to lobby governments because many people don't necessarily have the scientific or skeptical background they need to adequately assess nuclear power (or any other type for that matter).

No doubt the NIMBY factor rises up whenever the word "radiation" is mentioned. But part of the reason is the difficulty the rest of us have in trusting an industry that functions through the capture of politicians and regulatory agencies.

Nobody said it was. It will take decades to clean up the site. (Heck, even decommissioning a reactor that wasn't hit by such a disaster is a lengthy process.

Reactors that are in the process of uncontrolled meltdown (something denied by TEPCO and Government officials until high levels of radiation along the Pacific Coast gave it away) are a wild card! In that sense, Fukushima is much worse than Chernobyl...because at least Chernobyl was brought under control.....at high human cost and risk to nearby residents....but the big issue there was the long delayed permanent encasement of the reactor (est. about $1 billion US if I recall) as the collapsed Soviet Union and bankrupt Ukraine and Russian governments were well underway in their experiment in Neoliberal capitalism and therefore determined to pass the costs on to others within a potential radiation zone of a meltdown.

But then, decommissioning/replacing solar panels at the end of their life time would also require money and time.

Even more off-topic, but I have mentioned myself that the increasing profitability of making windmills and solar panels is being used to bury unhelpful information like: rare earth elements (often produced by slave labour in conflict zones), the full carbon footprint of new "green" technologies, and...as you refer to here, new state-of-the-art solar panels produce some of the highest GHG trace gases in their production. All reasons why high energy dependence in the west should be the #1 issue, rather than trying to green everything with a near-endless supply of windmills and solar panels....but there are many in the Green Party who are already aware of the problem of Green Capitalism.

If you are voting green for strategic reasons, fine... heck, there may be other reasons to vote for them too.

Just don't do so because they have falsely tried to represent themselves as "the science party".

They may be well-meaning. They may think they are doing the right thing. (And they should get credit for recognizing global warming as an issue.) But many parts of their platform are strongly anti-science.

The Green Party began as a collective of environmentally-conscious people who were all over the map in politics. Trying to gather together green liberals and the permaculture movement will never lead to a party speaking with one voice....like the Conservatives! Some greens are grounded in science/ some are grounded in pseudoscience and take skepticism to the level of accepting everything with an 'alternative' label....which isn't me!

[WIP]

Yet. Unless radiation exposure is severe, the effects can take years or decades to show up. Nobody will ever know how many people die from Fukushima.

But that wasn't the question. You claimed that nuclear power was cheap. Here is a plant that cost billions and will cost 10 of billions to clean up over the next 30-40 years. And it's now producing nothing.

I haven't looked at the next two pages yet...but I hope it hasn't been flipped from being about the Green Party to being about Fukushima and nuclear power!

I still don't know where to draw the line (and it's likely impossible to nail it down anyway) when it comes to low levels of radiation being poured into the Pacific Ocean. A lot depends on the type of radiation, as some radioactive elements are more carcinogenic than others. There are plenty of examples of overreaction to radiation....a quick example would be the disseminated public wisdom to slather on sunscreens...especially on children, before letting them go outside. Now some medical experts are telling us that we have way overreacted to solar radiation and aren't getting enough sunlight, which is especially evident in growing numbers of people with vitamin D deficiencies. When people spend little time outdoors and plaster on sunscreen when they do, the cure has become worse than the disease.

Even the fatalities claim, which Segnosaur dropped in a comment to me, comes from an open source science journal....which off the top should raise red flags, because open source science is becoming the venue for all forms of dubious science. The journal collects their money up front, and it's questionable what sort of referreeing process the studies receive. The one he mentions about no fatalities at Fukushima can only be zero if we discount some cases that have leaked out about workers...especially temps brought in for the cleanup getting radiation sickness. Many of these people will die prematurely (just like Chernobyl). The screening process will try to remove all of them as liabilities if the corporation behind the disaster gets its way! There are also a high level....about 2000 deaths since Fukushima, of evacuees who had to flee the disaster zone. Many of these people were elderly and/or sick and less able to survive such a disruption, but should there deaths be automatically discounted...as the Japanese Government is attempting to do, or should they be added to the casualty list with the understanding that their lives were likely shortened by the evacuation. There is also a recent story in the news about local farmers getting the go-ahead to resume planting and harvesting. These farmers say they feel conflicted about being told their benefits end if they do not go back and resume farming, and many say they will do so, but will not eat their produce themselves. Many consumers will be eating produce with higher-than-normal radiation levels to add to the fish being consumed that could be dangerously irradiated. I don't know where that radiation line should be drawn, but if there wasn't money involved, the people we put our trust in would be erring on the side of caution.....and like so many other environmental issues, that's not what they are doing!

[WIP]

According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve.

Now, in reality that wouldn't happen under a Green party government... after all, they'd only control a small fraction of the world's food supply. Still, it seems strange to champion a method of farming that would lead to widespread starvation.

Well, this is one topic that you have left science behind! Because Norman Borlaug warned the UN policymakers and international government representatives back then that the Green Revolution should only be viewed as providing the breathing space to prevent starvation while getting population growth under control. What happened since then is that the triumvirate of US Republicans, the Catholic Church and the Council of Islamic States formed an unusual tagteam to disrupt and defund birth control and abortion programs worldwide....thereby paving the way for our +7 billion we have today.

One thing that Borlaug was aware of...and techo-irrationalists have been ignoring ever since, is that new hybrid seeds were NOT the primary cause of higher grain yields. The productivity per acre has mostly been increased through massive application of oil-based fertilizers and using oil drilling technology to drill for deep water reservoirs that had previously been considered too far underground to utilize effectively. Today we are spiraling down in agricultural output after leveling off for many years as burned out topsoil and groundwater depletion is leading big ag to scramble for more land and leaving depleted exhausted land in its place. Available arable land is becoming scarce and is only found by burning down the last remnants of rainforests and pushing people off of land in Africa and Asia for cash-cropping. If you can't see that we are coming to the end of business-as-usual then you are not using reason or evidence, as we are going to hit a massive crunch in the coming years (all depends on weather) and the mass migrations we have seen so far, which have desertification as their catalyst, will look like child's play in comparison. The global population is going to start falling rapidly in the relative near future, and if there is no attempt to bring it down in a controlled manner, it will happen through wars, famines and an elevated risk of full scale nuclear war. Whether anyone is still surviving on this planet at the end of the century is up for grabs considering the choices that have been made over the past 40 years or so!

Edited September 5, 2015 by WIP