Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

[69cat]

The discussion on Nuclear just puts into light the political big money bullshit that backs global warming. ALL of the problems claimed by global warming activists are resolved by Nuclear, but you cant have nuclear. We have a better plan, we call it "green energy", now we cant actually meet our energy needs with it, but until we figure out that hickup nuclear will remain off the table. In laymans terms, global warming is not a big enough deal to build nuclear because with nuclear we have to go to a uranium mine in northern Sask and put the spent fuel back underground. No, we prefer the complete desrtruction of the world ecosystem (according to global warming) to storing spent fuel in a cave.

[ReeferMadness]

BS. There is absolutely no evidence of that on the manifesto website. The only people that comes close a scholar are folks from the Center for Policy Alternatives but they are really an ideologically driven propaganda outfit.

You also ignored the elephant in the room: a report that claims the need for action on CO2 but then completely ignores nuclear is nothing but a religious document for the Church of CAGW. That omission alone shows that any "scholars" involved simply don't have the expertise to make any authoritative statements on the topic.

I've already posted my link on this which shows that the position is supported by scholars across Canada.

But speaking of Church, Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what science supports his government.

[TimG]

No, we prefer the complete desrtruction of the world ecosystem (according to global warming) to storing spent fuel in a cave.

Yep. Summarizes the thinking of the green party hypocrites which is why their claims about caring about "the science" are BS and they can only be viewed as a new age religion.

[TimG]

I've already posted my link on this which shows that the position is supported by scholars across Canada.

It is not on the manifesto website so I don't see why I should look for it. If it had any actual relevance to the topic at hand it would be on the manifesto website.

Once again you ignore the elephant: how can you possibly claim that a document about reducing CO2 emissions is "science based" if it fails to mention nuclear power? It is a simple question. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.

BTW: the question of whether Harper is an evangelical is not relevant. the question is how NDP types would react if a bunch of evangelicals published a religious text like the manifesto? My point is you really can't complain if the NDP gets a taste of its own medicine.

Edited September 18, 2015 by TimG

[Evening Star]

Lets say a group of Christian evangelicals published their 'vision' for transforming society to conform with their religious preferences (i.e. do exactly what Klein and her ilk have just did - the only difference is the details of the religion). Does anyone believe for a second that NDP supporters would not be howling about how it represents a Conservative 'hidden agenda'? NDP supporter can whine as much as they like about people saying the manifesto represents the NDP 'hidden agenda' but they are simply getting a taste of their own medicine.

That's the argument? "We think the other guys would probably do this (admittedly unfair) thing to our team in a hypothetical situation so they deserve a taste of their own hypothetical medicine"?

[69cat]

TimG, picture holding a balance scale with destruction of the planet on one side and storing spent waste from where it came on the other side.

Yes, hard to be on board with the global warming crowd and deny there is huge money backing their agenda.

[TimG]

That's the argument? "We think the other guys would probably do this (admittedly unfair) thing to our team in a hypothetical situation so they deserve a taste of their own hypothetical medicine"?

The 'hidden agenda' accusations were not hypothetical. They were heavily used by the NDP and Libs in every election until the Conservatives got power. Going after the NDP for the 'hidden agenda' represented by this manifesto is no more fair but since the NDP used this same tactic in the past they can hardly complain.

[Evening Star]

The 'hidden agenda' accusations were not hypothetical. They were heavily used by the NDP and Libs in every election until the Conservatives got power. Going after the NDP for the 'hidden agenda' represented by this manifesto is no more fair but since the NDP used this same tactic in the past they can hardly complain.

I can remember the Liberals running ads about a Tory hidden agenda but I can't remember the NDP ever doing that. And, even then, I can't remember the Liberals quoting statements by a non-aligned third-party organization as evidence for this.

Edited for language: I would be the first to tell NDP supporters that they were being foolish if they did this.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Evening Star

[biotk]

And when you equate Christian evangelism with a document that summarizes work produced by 60 scholars, you are clearly identifying yourself as anti-science.

I think that this misrepresents the document. The document was not peer-reviewed and it was not put together by a group of people chosen by a major scientific organization, journal or university etc because they were leaders in their relevant fields. This group of scholars came together because they were like-minded people who already agreed on the outcome. It is no different than if a group of Austrian School economics devotees came together to write a document about how the Australian School is the best way to solve our problems.

There is a strong consensus on climate change, but that does not mean that there is a strong consensus on the actions to take. The article here talks about what the author labels as the three distinct groups of intellectuals who are advocating for action on climate change: the ecological activists, the smart growth reformers, and the ecomodernists. The current manifesto and the document you have referred to are all created by people who are clearly and strongly in the first group. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong or misguided (on a personal level I think they are completely wrong-headed, guided by ideology, emotions and feel-good platitudes instead of evidence, and will cause damage if they manage to influence policy makers to any significant degree; but I am biased and strongly in the ecomodernist camp myself), but there is certainly no scientific consensus behind their desired actions - and the positions opposing nuclear and embracing inefficient agriculture that most ecological activists (including the ones behind both this manifesto and the document in question) leave some scientists (like myself) frustrated that these groups care only about pushing an ideological agenda and are using fear of climate change to do so without actually caring about the science, evidence-based solutions, or the best outcomes.

Edited September 18, 2015 by biotk

[Black Dog]

The 'hidden agenda' accusations were not hypothetical. They were heavily used by the NDP and Libs in every election until the Conservatives got power. Going after the NDP for the 'hidden agenda' represented by this manifesto is no more fair but since the NDP used this same tactic in the past they can hardly complain.

And since they were mocked and ridiculed for it then, it's only fair that hysterical conservatives get the same treatment today.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Black Dog

[ReeferMadness]

There is a strong consensus on climate change, but that does not mean that there is a strong consensus on the actions to take. The article here talks about what the author labels as the three distinct groups of intellectuals who are advocating for action on climate change: the ecological activists, the smart growth reformers, and the ecomodernists. The current manifesto and the document you have referred to are all created by people who are clearly and strongly in the first group.

Interesting read - thank you for the link.

I interpreted the manifesto and supporting document as a convincing argument that there is a possible future where we can live without fossil fuels, not necessarily that this is the only or even the best possible future. I think it would be amazing if we could turn the corner and debate how to leave fossil fuels behind. However, as you will see if you hang around here, there are many who can't even contemplate that possibility. And even among those who do, many cling to nuclear, which could turn out to be even worse.

It would be tragic if the three groups (and I don't think they are as 'distinct' as the author claims) start to squabble amongst themselves. I only perused the document briefly but I think there is no single right answer and the best approach is to combine elements of each.

[eyeball]

The link doesn't work now unfortunately.

Now it does.

Edited September 18, 2015 by eyeball

[TimG]

I interpreted the manifesto and supporting document as a convincing argument that there is a possible future where we can live without fossil fuels, not necessarily that this is the only or even the best possible future.

I missed anything resembling an argument in the document. All I saw were a bunch of wishful thinking and unsupported assertions. It is more like a prayer book than a serious plan.

However, as you will see if you hang around here, there are many who can't even contemplate that possibility. And even among those who do, many cling to nuclear, which could turn out to be even worse.

Of course, the possibility that the naysayers are correct does not even occur to you. More classic symptoms of religious fervour rather than rational thought. If you were actually concerned about science you would show some humility and take the time to understand the people who think baseload is critically important to the energy system. Instead you just castigate them for failing to join your religion. Edited September 18, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

I missed anything resembling an argument in the document. All I saw were a bunch of wishful thinking and unsupported assertions. It is more like a prayer book than a serious plan.

Of course, the possibility that the naysayers are correct does not even occur to you. More classic symptoms of religious fervour rather than rational thought. If you were actually concerned about science you would show some humility and take the time to understand the people who think baseload is critically important to the energy system. Instead you just castigate them for failing to join your religion.

Shhhh. The adults are speaking now.

[TimG]

Shhhh. The adults are speaking now.

Your capacity for self-delusion would be truly amazing if it was not so scary.

To recap: I pointed out that the failure to even address the nuclear question is evidence that the 'manifesto' cannot possibly be a serious plan to address the CO2 problem. You repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the omission except for some snide comment about 'clinging to nuclear'.

For me the question is simple: nuclear risks are more than manageable given the technology we have today. If CO2 is a bad as you say it is then we have no choice but to live with the nuclear risk because it is better than the alternative. However, if CO2 is not bad enough to convince you that the nuclear risks are manageable then that means you don't really think that CO2 is serious problem that requires immediate action. This implies that your calls to reduce CO2 motivated by something other than a fear of the consequences.

Edited September 18, 2015 by TimG

[69cat]

Reefer, explain how you think nuclear could turn out even worse.

[Evening Star]

I don't even begin to understand how any of the old guard could be happy with where the NDP has landed. They could have achieved more progressive policies if they were a third place party with a more progressive leader. If you have to abandon most of your principles to gain power, then what's the point?

The thing is that, while I can maybe see a little bit of a shift with Mulcair, on basic economic policy, the NDP really hasn't shifted that much from the Layton years. I sometimes wonder what people thought they were voting for under Layton. Layton yammered about balanced budgets and cutting small business taxes all the time and did not advocate higher personal income taxes or nationalizations as far as I can remember. The basic planks are pretty consistent: slightly higher corporate taxes, closing loopholes, a more cautious approach to free trade, halting further privatizations and P3 projects, praise for the Prairie NDP governments while distancing themselves from Rae's legacy. Layton's NDP was definitely more centrist than the NDP of 20 years earlier but I don't think the shift came with Mulcair.

[ReeferMadness]

Reefer, explain how you think nuclear could turn out even worse.

The issues with nuclear energy are so numerous, this topic deserves its own thread. I don't think nuclear energy is cheap or safe, particularly when you consider the wastes will be dangerous for thousands of years. Furthermore, nuclear power plants, which are inherently complex, extremely expensive single points of failure, make for a bad systems design. Contrast that with solar and wind, which are inherently simple and distributed, making for a naturally redundant, distributed system.

Leave a solar installation alone and come back in 25 years. It will probably be still producing power and the worst case will be that it doesn't. Try that with a nuclear reactor.

But the most damning thing about nuclear energy is this:

The most dangerous aspect of climate change is the one that is rarely discussed. When (not if) the impacts of climate change start to be felt in a serious way, people aren't going to just lie down and die peacefully. There will almost certainly be wars (some think this is already happening). Nuclear reactors produce plutonium and they distribute the technology and know-how that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A number of the countries now known to have nuclear weapons started by pursuing nuclear power "for peaceful purposes". Think of what happens if you multiply the mess in the middle east by 10 and then assume that most of the countries involved have nukes.

[ReeferMadness]

The thing is that, while I can maybe see a little bit of a shift with Mulcair, on basic economic policy, the NDP really hasn't shifted that much from the Layton years. I sometimes wonder what people thought they were voting for under Layton. Layton yammered about balanced budgets and cutting small business taxes all the time and did not advocate higher personal income taxes or nationalizations as far as I can remember. The basic planks are pretty consistent: slightly higher corporate taxes, closing loopholes, a more cautious approach to free trade, halting further privatizations and P3 projects, praise for the Prairie NDP governments while distancing themselves from Rae's legacy. Layton's NDP was definitely more centrist than the NDP of 20 years earlier but I don't think the shift came with Mulcair.

Mulcair is no Layton in the same way Layton was no Broadbent (I know there were people in the middle but I don't recall). The shift has been going on for a long time. But the difference to me is that Layton still occupied territory on the left end of the spectrum. Mulcair has moved them so far that I see them as being right of the Liberals on most things.

[eyeball]

When (not if) the impacts of climate change start to be felt in a serious way, people aren't going to just lie down and die peacefully. There will almost certainly be wars (some think this is already happening).

Absolutely it's happening and has been for some time. When the water-hole gets smaller the animals get meaner. It's no different when planet's don't grow with the economy.

[ReeferMadness]

Absolutely it's happening and has been for some time. When the water-hole gets smaller the animals get meaner. It's no different when planet's don't grow with the economy.

Then it's a really bad idea to be growing nuclear energy in the middle of an unstable world. Take the subsidies away from nuclear energy and invest it in research for better battery technology and/or other grid storage. Electric cars and renewable energy are the way to go for the short to medium term.

[eyeball]

Yep. If we'd started doing this about 15 years ago we might have a better chance.

I think we're too late and probably screwed now. We've left it too long.

[TimG]

Leave a solar installation alone and come back in 25 years. It will probably be still producing power and the worst case will be that it doesn't. Try that with a nuclear reactor.

The expected lifetime of a solar panel is 25 years. After that it has to be replaced. Replacing solar panels produces a lot of toxic waste. If you produce the sheer number of solar panel necessary to feed our society and you will also produce a huge mountain of toxic waste that is far worse (due to volume) that the nuclear waste (which is not really waste because it can be re-used in reactors until it is inert).

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/solar-panel-makers-grapple-with-hazardous-waste-problem?__lsa=7c32-36e5

Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.

Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama’s administration, Solyndra said it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.

Which works out to 0.3kg of toxic waste per 1W of solar panel output.

But the most damning thing about nuclear energy is this:

Well if you are that pessimistic then what are the chances of any program demanding 'austerity for climate change' succeeding? Your entire religion is based on the assumption that people will sacrifice today for benefits that they will never get. Seems to me you are admitting that your religion is a fantasy.

Also: Thorium provides nuclear power without the weapon grade material. If you are concerned about that you can advocate thorium reactors which are untested but likely viable once the certification process completes. Simply dismissing nuclear because of the 'weapon's risk' is naive and short sighted.

Edited September 18, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

There is a strong consensus on climate change, but that does not mean that there is a strong consensus on the actions to take.

That statement might be true in the scientific community but I don't think it's a contextually accurate statement of the attitude of society at large. And it certainly bears no resemblance to how our political class thinks, based on what was discussed in yesterday's debate on the economy.

The population is in denial. People don't want to think about the ramifications of climate change because it's so big. They don't want to know that their cheap trips to Mexico and Cuba might well ruin the lives of their children. They're afraid that environmentalists are telling them they have to go back and live in caves. That's why the issue is so toxic that none of the 3 big parties are willing to address it in an honest way. (Actually, there is a theory that one of them is a Christian fundamentalist whose views may be informed by a biblical view of the world but that's even scarier).

That's why this document is important. It demonstrates that there is a strong possibility that we can consume roughly the same amount of energy but do so in a way that is sustainable. So, whether this is the best solution is really a secondary issue. The first challenge is political. We need to get the public past their fear to look at the problem in the cold light of day.

[TimG]

It demonstrates that there is a strong possibility that we can consume roughly the same amount of energy but do so in a way that is sustainable.

It did no such thing. It presented a fantasy which you want to believe. Why is it OK for you to cling to fantasies while deriding people who believe that solutions must be grounded in reality?

If you really want to take a rational science based decision making process it starts with you acknowledging that there are real technical constraints that limit the mass deployment of renewables and that we can only discuss such solution after these technical problems have been resolved. Until then we need base load and that means coal, gas, nuclear or hydro.

You can either be part of the solution or be part of the problem. As long as you cling to completely unworkable fantasies you are part of the problem.

Edited September 18, 2015 by TimG