Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[bacchi]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

THis is what bothers me about the current public conversation about these bills.  Just a few weeks ago Congress passed its annual Defense Authorization bill for $768B.  That’s for one year’s funding, and the lion’s share is the Pentagon budget.  It’s actually a $24B increase over the previous year (authorized by Trump).  It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 316-113, and included over 400 amendments over the previous year.  It’s remarkable in that it’s passage was completely unremarkable.

By most estimates we’ll spend over $9T on Defense Authorization over the next 10 years.  This won’t include ‘special funding’ for future conflicts or ‘emergency defense measures’. Yet somehow that funding is unremarkable but spending a small fraction of that (about 1/3 by the latest numbers) is riotously debated about being unaffordable.

The story never changes. Defense spending gets a pass from most conservatives, many liberals, and even a lot of libertarians. "We spend too much! Let's cut spending for national parks and all welfare but we need $750B for defense."

[nereo]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

THis is what bothers me about the current public conversation about these bills.  Just a few weeks ago Congress passed its annual Defense Authorization bill for $768B.  That’s for one year’s funding, and the lion’s share is the Pentagon budget.  It’s actually a $24B increase over the previous year (authorized by Trump).  It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 316-113, and included over 400 amendments over the previous year.  It’s remarkable in that it’s passage was completely unremarkable.

By most estimates we’ll spend over $9T on Defense Authorization over the next 10 years.  This won’t include ‘special funding’ for future conflicts or ‘emergency defense measures’. Yet somehow that funding is unremarkable but spending a small fraction of that (about 1/3 by the latest numbers) is riotously debated about being unaffordable.

The story never changes. Defense spending gets a pass from most conservatives, many liberals, and even a lot of libertarians. "We spend too much! Let's cut spending for national parks and all welfare but we need $750B for defense."

I’m using the defense authorization act here as a prime example, but it’s not limited to military spending. Congress passes bills with annual price-tags in the 12 figures (that’s hundred-of-billions) every session. But somehow a ~1.9T over 10 years infrastructure bill gets labeled “monumental” and “enormous”.

[pecunia]

The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Could they sell some of this stuff as defense related?  They did that with the interstate highway system years ago.   I'd think a healthy population would be paramount to the defense of the country.  I'd think the 2 years of free community college would give a population more ready for war.  I'd think the climate change thing would mitigate future possibilities of war and some of the work to fight climate change could be given to defense contractors.

If the defense contractors got behind some of this stuff they would probably tell their Republicans to vote for it.

[Travis]

The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Just like the "ten year" metric gets glossed over, currency conversions are never mentioned when comparing our spending to other countries. The $250billion that China spends on its entire military? The US spends that on just paychecks and healthcare before a single bullet is purchased.

You can make an argument that we spend too much on defense, but you can't ignore that things just cost more in the US than other countries.  There's a reason why so much of what you buy says "made in China" on it.

[nereo]

The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Could they sell some of this stuff as defense related?  They did that with the interstate highway system years ago.   I'd think a healthy population would be paramount to the defense of the country.  I'd think the 2 years of free community college would give a population more ready for war.  I'd think the climate change thing would mitigate future possibilities of war and some of the work to fight climate change could be given to defense contractors.

If the defense contractors got behind some of this stuff they would probably tell their Republicans to vote for it.

None other than General Mattis said: If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately

And Sec of Defense Austin III: Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does

EVen the military brass seem to recognize that spending in other areas improves our defense

[Travis]

The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Could they sell some of this stuff as defense related?  They did that with the interstate highway system years ago.   I'd think a healthy population would be paramount to the defense of the country.  I'd think the 2 years of free community college would give a population more ready for war.  I'd think the climate change thing would mitigate future possibilities of war and some of the work to fight climate change could be given to defense contractors.

If the defense contractors got behind some of this stuff they would probably tell their Republicans to vote for it.

None other than General Mattis said: If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately

And Sec of Defense Austin III: Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does

EVen the military brass seem to recognize that spending in other areas improves our defense

Our instruments of national power are summed up in what we call DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, economic). Those of us in the military like to refer to it as diMe with how often the others are paid any attention.

[PDXTabs]

The Guardian: US auctions off oil and gas drilling leases in Gulf of Mexico after climate talks.

Some highlights include:
Just four days after landmark climate talks in Scotland in which Joe Biden vowed the US will “lead by example” in tackling dangerous global heating, the president’s own administration is providing a jarring contradiction – the largest ever sale of oil and gas drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
“Coming in the aftermath of the climate summit, this is just mind boggling. It’s hard to imagine a more hypocritical and dangerous thing for the administration to do,” said Kristen Monsell, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s incredibly reckless and we think unlawful too. It’s just immensely disappointing.”
...
“This administration went to Scotland and told the world that America’s climate leadership is back, and now it’s about to hand over 80m acres of public waters in the Gulf of Mexico to fossil fuel companies,” said Raul Grijalva, chair of the House natural resources committee. “[The] lease sale is a step in the wrong direction, and the administration needs to do better.”
...
Critics say a worrying pattern has emerged during Biden’s tenure, with his administration handing out drilling permits at a rate of more than 300 a month since his inauguration, a faster pace even than under Donald Trump.

[talltexan]

I received a check in the mail for my Childcare Tax credit. Every little bit helps.

[chemistk]

There's some nuance behind the oil leases, as there is with just about everything. From what I can tell, it seems that this wasn't an active decision - more a passive thing in that a Federal court overturned the administration's January injunction to stop new leases. The original lease plans were set in motion a few years ago based on an environmental analysis published during the Trump admin, analysis of which probably started back during the end of the Obama era.

So as with everything - sensationalist headline fails to inform the reader of the depth behind the story. Shocking.

All that being said, this is a bad look. It's hard to think that there wasn't/isn't more that could be done to prevent these new leases. I'll give the current administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that those responsible are actually trying to stop things like this from happening, but their efforts are not hard enough.

Is the less-than-ideal focus on this issue because we know that natural gas prices are going up? Because the oil companies more or less own Washington? Because there are bigger immediate things to focus on? I don't have those answers.

[PDXTabs]

It's hard to think that there wasn't/isn't more that could be done to prevent these new leases.

That's essentially what the ranking (Democratic) member of the House natural resources committee said, "the administration needs to do better."

Because there are bigger immediate things to focus on?

Short of global thermonuclear war I can't imagine anything bigger than climate change over the next 80+ years. Of course politicians have to stand for election every 2-6 years.

[chemistk]

It's hard to think that there wasn't/isn't more that could be done to prevent these new leases.

That's essentially what the ranking (Democratic) member of the House natural resources committee said, "the administration needs to do better."

Because there are bigger immediate things to focus on?

Short of global thermonuclear war I can't imagine anything bigger than climate change over the next 80+ years. Of course politicians have to stand for election every 2-6 years.

I wholeheartedly agree. But re-elections and quarterly profits prevail at the expense of, well, everything.

Right now the silver lining I see is that it's harder and harder for the oil companies to maintain the PR, or alternatively they're so good at it that we've all fallen for another "carbon footprint" scheme.

[px4shooter]

The Guardian: US auctions off oil and gas drilling leases in Gulf of Mexico after climate talks.

Some highlights include:
Just four days after landmark climate talks in Scotland in which Joe Biden vowed the US will “lead by example” in tackling dangerous global heating, the president’s own administration is providing a jarring contradiction – the largest ever sale of oil and gas drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
...

I am guessing they didn't discuss the lawsuit where he tried to cancel the sale and cancel some of the current leases. He was blocked by a federal judge.

As for the passed budget.... Still curious how the child tax credit will work since they removed the SS# requirement and saying it will be available to those that are here illegally.

[nereo]

I’m frustrated to see so many lease applications for drilling fossil fuels move forward, but it does seem like it’s the direct result of court rulings.

To that end, one of the continuing frustrations (some might even call it “outrages”) expressed about our previous president in that now-closed thread was on extreme executive over-reach; simply not following the rulings of courts he did not like, or enacting (or refusing to enact) policies over the objection and authority of the legislature.

So I’m glad to see our President isn’t taking it to that extreme.  There’s still more ‘governing by EO” than I would like but it’s a welcome shift.

[tooqk4u22]

I’m frustrated to see so many lease applications for drilling fossil fuels move forward, but it does seem like it’s the direct result of court rulings.

To that end, one of the continuing frustrations (some might even call it “outrages”) expressed about our previous president in that now-closed thread was on extreme executive over-reach; simply not following the rulings of courts he did not like, or enacting (or refusing to enact) policies over the objection and authority of the legislature.

So I’m glad to see our President isn’t taking it to that extreme.  There’s still more ‘governing by EO” than I would like but it’s a welcome shift.

The US still needs fossil fuels and will for some time as going to a green economy won't happen overnight as some like to think.   To that end maintaining energy independence is important......the answer is certainly not to ask other foreign states to pump more so the current administration doesn't appear backpedaling on the green initiative.

Now if the goal is to keep energy prices inflated so the economics of green investments make more financial sense then approach it with taxes, tariffs and such not through limiting supply.

[chemistk]

I’m frustrated to see so many lease applications for drilling fossil fuels move forward, but it does seem like it’s the direct result of court rulings.

To that end, one of the continuing frustrations (some might even call it “outrages”) expressed about our previous president in that now-closed thread was on extreme executive over-reach; simply not following the rulings of courts he did not like, or enacting (or refusing to enact) policies over the objection and authority of the legislature.

So I’m glad to see our President isn’t taking it to that extreme.  There’s still more ‘governing by EO” than I would like but it’s a welcome shift.

The US still needs fossil fuels and will for some time as going to a green economy won't happen overnight as some like to think.   To that end maintaining energy independence is important......the answer is certainly not to ask other foreign states to pump more so the current administration doesn't appear backpedaling on the green initiative.

Now if the goal is to keep energy prices inflated so the economics of green investments make more financial sense then approach it with taxes, tariffs and such not through limiting supply.

I see your point and largely agree, except that the tap on new wells has to be turned off eventually. Kicking the can down to the next administration or two is much less than ideal.

New wells just means more opportunity for continued environmental destruction in the Gulf. I'd rather see limited supply and a requisite societal shift away from fossil-based energy consumption that drives up prices than to continue full bore with drilling operations and drawing revenue from over-the-top taxes.

[tooqk4u22]

Yeah, but transitionally a micro comparison to global economy would be like having a gas powered car and them saying we are not shutting down gas stations but we will not deliver any more gas going forward......um. how do I get to my job and whatever then?  You buy an EV, um ok but 1. I can't afford it yet and 2. even if I could I can't get one for several years bc supply and tech hasn't adjusted for this new policy.   Too bad, that's your problem.   

[nereo]

Yeah, but transitionally a micro comparison to global economy would be like having a gas powered car and them saying we are not shutting down gas stations but we will not deliver any more gas going forward......um. how do I get to my job and whatever then?  You buy an EV, um ok but 1. I can't afford it yet and 2. even if I could I can't get one for several years bc supply and tech hasn't adjusted for this new policy.   Too bad, that's your problem.

This might be a decent analogy if we didn't already have existing wells that are churning out a record level of production, and are slated to do so for several years into the future.  Plus, the whole "oil is a global commodity" thing.  Phasing out future leases would still be a gradual unwinding of domestic oil production which would take years to really curtail our total output.

[chemistk]

Yeah, but transitionally a micro comparison to global economy would be like having a gas powered car and them saying we are not shutting down gas stations but we will not deliver any more gas going forward......um. how do I get to my job and whatever then?  You buy an EV, um ok but 1. I can't afford it yet and 2. even if I could I can't get one for several years bc supply and tech hasn't adjusted for this new policy.   Too bad, that's your problem.

This might be a decent analogy if we didn't already have existing wells that are churning out a record level of production, and are slated to do so for several years into the future.  Plus, the whole "oil is a global commodity" thing.  Phasing out future leases would still be a gradual unwinding of domestic oil production which would take years to really curtail our total output.

Precisely. If these leases were blocked, and the wells permanently left untapped, a bunch of actuaries would start concluding that future investment is better served in alternative infrastructure. By tapping the wells, you're just signaling to companies that "yeah, we've got oil flowing for at least the next couple decades" and then further delaying any real action.

Can oil come from other places globally? Absolutely, but the tapering away from it has to start somewhere. Not tapping these wells wouldn't cause gas shortages, just higher prices.

[Just Joe]

Let us hope that the average American consumer likes EVs so much that they evangelize to their social circles and change minds quickly.

[nereo]

Let us hope that the average American consumer likes EVs so much that they evangelize to their social circles and change minds quickly.

There’sa lot to like when gasoline costs north of $3/gallon. Plus, on the last two years they have become “common enough” that they aren’t viewed as exclusively the car of environmental hippies. If the current pace continues it will only be a few years before chargers at businesses became a perk to essential to attract customers/employees. At least that is my hope.

[GuitarStv]

Let us hope that the average American consumer likes EVs so much that they evangelize to their social circles and change minds quickly.

There’sa lot to like when gasoline costs north of $3/gallon. Plus, on the last two years they have become “common enough” that they aren’t viewed as exclusively the car of environmental hippies. If the current pace continues it will only be a few years before chargers at businesses became a perk to essential to attract customers/employees. At least that is my hope.

Man, I keep forgetting how super cheap gas is in the US.

We're paying $5.30ish per gallon here in Canada.  Last I was reading for 2021, EV sales accounted for about 4% of new purchases.

[nereo]

Let us hope that the average American consumer likes EVs so much that they evangelize to their social circles and change minds quickly.

There’sa lot to like when gasoline costs north of $3/gallon. Plus, on the last two years they have become “common enough” that they aren’t viewed as exclusively the car of environmental hippies. If the current pace continues it will only be a few years before chargers at businesses became a perk to essential to attract customers/employees. At least that is my hope.

Man, I keep forgetting how super cheap gas is in the US.

We're paying $5.30ish per gallon here in Canada.  Last I was reading for 2021, EV sales accounted for about 4% of new purchases.

Yeah it’s telling when posters start talking about how outrageous fuel prices are here in the US without any real understanding that we pay far less than many developed nations. It’s not unlike the discussion about “high taxes”.

[MudPuppy]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

[nereo]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

Had not heard that but I love it.
Back in the late 90s I would frequent Cracker Barrel to partake in their “audio cd library”. For those who don’t remember, cdd were what you used to listen to music, books etc from the late 80s through the early 2000s. You could go to any Cracker Barrel and get an audio overland return if to any other location. Brilliant marketing, ensuring a devoted base and a return visit. But few cars have cd decks anymore so the program dried up.

[pecunia]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

Had not heard that but I love it.
Back in the late 90s I would frequent Cracker Barrel to partake in their “audio cd library”. For those who don’t remember, cdd were what you used to listen to music, books etc from the late 80s through the early 2000s. You could go to any Cracker Barrel and get an audio overland return if to any other location. Brilliant marketing, ensuring a devoted base and a return visit. But few cars have cd decks anymore so the program dried up.

Makin' me feel real old. I used to play my dad's 78 RPM records as a kid.

[nereo]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

Had not heard that but I love it.
Back in the late 90s I would frequent Cracker Barrel to partake in their “audio cd library”. For those who don’t remember, cdd were what you used to listen to music, books etc from the late 80s through the early 2000s. You could go to any Cracker Barrel and get an audio overland return if to any other location. Brilliant marketing, ensuring a devoted base and a return visit. But few cars have cd decks anymore so the program dried up.

Makin' me feel real old. I used to play my dad's 78 RPM records as a kid.

In a car??  Was that a thing?

[sonofsven]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

Had not heard that but I love it.
Back in the late 90s I would frequent Cracker Barrel to partake in their “audio cd library”. For those who don’t remember, cdd were what you used to listen to music, books etc from the late 80s through the early 2000s. You could go to any Cracker Barrel and get an audio overland return if to any other location. Brilliant marketing, ensuring a devoted base and a return visit. But few cars have cd decks anymore so the program dried up.

Makin' me feel real old. I used to play my dad's 78 RPM records as a kid.

In a car??  Was that a thing?

I used to frequent a shop that dealt in vintage camera and audio gear. They actually did have an old 12 volt turntable with speakers that plugged into the cigarette lighter and could attach to the window, like a drive in movie speaker.
I was dumbfounded! It was used for parking though, not so much during driving.

[pecunia]

@nereo Cracker Barrel really did a great thing when they added EV stations, imo. They lean into being “interstate trip” food and the charging stations make a ton of sense.

Had not heard that but I love it.
Back in the late 90s I would frequent Cracker Barrel to partake in their “audio cd library”. For those who don’t remember, cdd were what you used to listen to music, books etc from the late 80s through the early 2000s. You could go to any Cracker Barrel and get an audio overland return if to any other location. Brilliant marketing, ensuring a devoted base and a return visit. But few cars have cd decks anymore so the program dried up.

Makin' me feel real old. I used to play my dad's 78 RPM records as a kid.

In a car??  Was that a thing?

Not in a car, but it did have a morning glory horn on the player.  No RCA dog though.

I've got a different attitude about the drilling.  I certainly do think there will be a transition to electric cars.  However, it won't be immediate.

A few years ago they used to have this old guy on the TV who had a show about the lifestyles of the rich and famous.  From what I remember as I was not a regular watcher of that fare, they showed opulent living by the rich oil moguls in the Middle East.  I scratched my head and figured the gasoline purchased in North America was used for that.  It disturbed me a bit.

So, I figure if they drill here for a few more years will give good jobs to people in North America.  The environmental standards are probably more extreme than in some other countries as a bit of oil on the sand does not seem to be too disturbing.  The same amount of gas will be sold during the transition period.  Why not keep the money here?  I realize the Tar Sands oil could be an exception, but I won't judge.

I grew up in a small mining town.  Each mining job generated 4-5 other jobs.  I saw the results when mines shut down.

I've given it thought from another angle too.  If the oil comes from North America, we shouldn't need that vast Armada protecting the Middle Eastern oil sheiks.  We probably would leave some to ensure the world's trade is not disrupted, but not like we have today.

I've heard some refineries have been tailored for Middle Eastern crude.  They can be changed to accept North American crude.

Like my view on more nuclear plants, I understand views will differ.

[sixwings]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

THis is what bothers me about the current public conversation about these bills.  Just a few weeks ago Congress passed its annual Defense Authorization bill for $768B.  That’s for one year’s funding, and the lion’s share is the Pentagon budget.  It’s actually a $24B increase over the previous year (authorized by Trump).  It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 316-113, and included over 400 amendments over the previous year.  It’s remarkable in that it’s passage was completely unremarkable.

By most estimates we’ll spend over $9T on Defense Authorization over the next 10 years.  This won’t include ‘special funding’ for future conflicts or ‘emergency defense measures’. Yet somehow that funding is unremarkable but spending a small fraction of that (about 1/3 by the latest numbers) is riotously debated about being unaffordable.

The story never changes. Defense spending gets a pass from most conservatives, many liberals, and even a lot of libertarians. "We spend too much! Let's cut spending for national parks and all welfare but we need $750B for defense."

I've brought this up before here, but it's worth noting that defense IS a "welfare" program. It's probably not a particularly efficient way of doing it, but it does provide a lot of access to opportunities for people with no options to make money and improve their lives. Joining the military is one way that people can lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty.   

(Not defending the amount that is spent, or the amount that goes to contractors pockets, or anything like that, but it's worth keeping this in mind when discussing the military).

[PDXTabs]

I’m frustrated to see so many lease applications for drilling fossil fuels move forward, but it does seem like it’s the direct result of court rulings.

To that end, one of the continuing frustrations (some might even call it “outrages”) expressed about our previous president in that now-closed thread was on extreme executive over-reach; simply not following the rulings of courts he did not like, or enacting (or refusing to enact) policies over the objection and authority of the legislature.

So I’m glad to see our President isn’t taking it to that extreme.  There’s still more ‘governing by EO” than I would like but it’s a welcome shift.

The US still needs fossil fuels and will for some time as going to a green economy won't happen overnight as some like to think.   To that end maintaining energy independence is important......the answer is certainly not to ask other foreign states to pump more so the current administration doesn't appear backpedaling on the green initiative.

Now if the goal is to keep energy prices inflated so the economics of green investments make more financial sense then approach it with taxes, tariffs and such not through limiting supply.

I would counter that the business-as-usual path (which we are currently on) is going to mean 3.0°C of warming by 2100. That's an absolute disaster. Like mass starvation and people dying from wet bulb temperatures if they go outdoors in South Asia. That scenario also likely involves Pakistan becoming a failed state with a nuclear arsenal and hundreds of millions of citizens.

EDITed to add that I didn't realize that a new report was out and that if all the current pledges are implemented we would probably be at or under 2.7°C by 2100. But that's the pledge number, not the what's actually written into law number. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021

[pecunia]

I had this thought.  Years ago, people did not like the Vietnam war.  There were big demonstrations.  The war ended.  I think some good was done.  Years age, people weren't happy that everyone didn't have civil rights.  There were big demonstrations.  Things didn't get perfect.  I think things got better.  Years before that women weren't allowed to vote.  There were big demonstrations.  Women got the vote.

So, now there is this thing about the whole world warming up.  Some say the oceans are becoming acid and it will kill the fish.  There is talk of the methane being released in the Arctic that will be a point of no return and the warming will essentially have a positive feedback loop.  The ice will continue to melt  Cities will be flooded.  There will be some awesome forest fires and hurricanes and stuff.  Most people believe they aren't making this stuff up.

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

Here they have this bill which includes the climate change stuff and they keep chipping it away like a melting ice cube.

It just seems like people may be a might too laid back where this issue is concerned.

[sui generis]

I had this thought.  Years ago, people did not like the Vietnam war.  There were big demonstrations.  The war ended.  I think some good was done.  Years age, people weren't happy that everyone didn't have civil rights.  There were big demonstrations.  Things didn't get perfect.  I think things got better.  Years before that women weren't allowed to vote.  There were big demonstrations.  Women got the vote.

So, now there is this thing about the whole world warming up.  Some say the oceans are becoming acid and it will kill the fish.  There is talk of the methane being released in the Arctic that will be a point of no return and the warming will essentially have a positive feedback loop.  The ice will continue to melt  Cities will be flooded.  There will be some awesome forest fires and hurricanes and stuff.  Most people believe they aren't making this stuff up.

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

Here they have this bill which includes the climate change stuff and they keep chipping it away like a melting ice cube.

It just seems like people may be a might too laid back where this issue is concerned.

Humans just have a hard time with long term stuff.  In Vietnam, people were dying that day and there were images of it.  For women's suffrage, they wanted to vote and there was, more likely than not, an election in less than a year from that moment that they didn't want to be blocked from.  For civil rights, people were being forced to sit at the back of the bus and weren't being served in restaurants that day.  And they wanted it to change right then. 

For climate change, while we can argue that a lot of the migration we're seeing is already being driven by climate change, mealy mouthed scientists continue to refuse to be pinned down, for the most part, about pinning anything specific to climate change (I'm married to one of those mealy-mouthed scientists.  Good for them and their professional integrity.  I expect that it will be of great comfort in our dystopian future that they refused to overstep what the science was telling them.  And that's not sarcasm.  That's just who they really, really are.)

It just doesn't have the urgency that these other things have in our guts, even though it actually does have that urgency, like scientifically, given that we have to act now to save ourselves decades and centuries from now.  Humans are only used to acting now to fix things now.

[PDXTabs]

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

There are some, like extinction rebellion in Scotland. But Scotland is pretty trend-setting when it comes to climate policy, these demonstrations need to be in Texas or Australia. Of course they are all in Scotland right now because of COP-26.

And sui generis is right about long term planning in homo sapiens sapiens.

[PKFFW]

For climate change, while we can argue that a lot of the migration we're seeing is already being driven by climate change, mealy mouthed scientists continue to refuse to be pinned down, for the most part, about pinning anything specific to climate change (I'm married to one of those mealy-mouthed scientists.  Good for them and their professional integrity.  I expect that it will be of great comfort in our dystopian future that they refused to overstep what the science was telling them.  And that's not sarcasm.  That's just who they really, really are.)

Here in Australia there have been a number of scientists that have, in order to impress upon the public the importance of the issue, given dire warnings about what could happen.  Then the media takes the absolute worst case predication out of all the predictions made and when it doesn't come true in exactly the way predicted at precisely the time predicted the entire scientific community is tarnished as being nothing more than hyperbolic scare mongers trying to drum up fear in order to be given more research money. 

"Oh look, we built a billion dollar desalination plant because those idiot scientists told us that because of climate change it was never going to rain again and our dams were never going to be full again.  Now it sits there not being used as most of the country is flooding and we are releasing billions of megaliters from the dam!!!!!"

Many of the broader community here in Australia are already convinced it is all a hoax of the radical left, with celebrities telling everyone we need to pay a carbon tax on everything and have to tighten our belts for the good of the climate while they fly private jets around the world leaving a bigger carbon footprint than any 100 of the regular joe public.   

Any sniff of incorrect information from the scientific community is jumped on as a reason to dismiss everything.  So I think that has a bit more to do with most scientists reticence in pinning anything to climate change than any desire to cling to professional integrity as we race toward a dystopian future.

[sui generis]

For climate change, while we can argue that a lot of the migration we're seeing is already being driven by climate change, mealy mouthed scientists continue to refuse to be pinned down, for the most part, about pinning anything specific to climate change (I'm married to one of those mealy-mouthed scientists.  Good for them and their professional integrity.  I expect that it will be of great comfort in our dystopian future that they refused to overstep what the science was telling them.  And that's not sarcasm.  That's just who they really, really are.)

Here in Australia there have been a number of scientists that have, in order to impress upon the public the importance of the issue, given dire warnings about what could happen.  Then the media takes the absolute worst case predication out of all the predictions made and when it doesn't come true in exactly the way predicted at precisely the time predicted the entire scientific community is tarnished as being nothing more than hyperbolic scare mongers trying to drum up fear in order to be given more research money. 

"Oh look, we built a billion dollar desalination plant because those idiot scientists told us that because of climate change it was never going to rain again and our dams were never going to be full again.  Now it sits there not being used as most of the country is flooding and we are releasing billions of megaliters from the dam!!!!!"

Many of the broader community here in Australia are already convinced it is all a hoax of the radical left, with celebrities telling everyone we need to pay a carbon tax on everything and have to tighten our belts for the good of the climate while they fly private jets around the world leaving a bigger carbon footprint than any 100 of the regular joe public.   

Any sniff of incorrect information from the scientific community is jumped on as a reason to dismiss everything.  So I think that has a bit more to do with most scientists reticence in pinning anything to climate change than any desire to cling to professional integrity as we race toward a dystopian future.

I think that can be true for people in science communications or for the handful of high profile researchers that go on CNN or whatever. But the average scientist isn't speaking to the public and, while I can't speak for all of them of course, I don't think they are feeling personally affronted by people taking the wrong conclusions, etc. It's like 10 steps before that point at which anyone is communicating to the public about any conclusions that they, amongst themselves (and hangers on like me), literally are saying that the data do not allow for x conclusions.

 I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

[LennStar]

I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

Ahem... no. They have said that the whole time, too.
The only difference is some wording around amount and propability caused by political pressure of the deniers and of course scientific carefulness. 20 years ago the wording basically was "we don't think it is anything else, but at the moment we can't prove that more than 70% are caused by human activity".

Now the wording is "the whole change we see is definitely caused by humans".

[nereo]

I had this thought.  Years ago, people did not like the Vietnam war.  There were big demonstrations.  The war ended.  I think some good was done.  Years age, people weren't happy that everyone didn't have civil rights.  There were big demonstrations.  Things didn't get perfect.  I think things got better.  Years before that women weren't allowed to vote.  There were big demonstrations.  Women got the vote.

So, now there is this thing about the whole world warming up.  Some say the oceans are becoming acid and it will kill the fish.  There is talk of the methane being released in the Arctic that will be a point of no return and the warming will essentially have a positive feedback loop.  The ice will continue to melt  Cities will be flooded.  There will be some awesome forest fires and hurricanes and stuff.  Most people believe they aren't making this stuff up.

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

Here they have this bill which includes the climate change stuff and they keep chipping it away like a melting ice cube.

It just seems like people may be a might too laid back where this issue is concerned.

There have been (and continue to be) large scale rallies And marches focused on climates  change, though probably not as many as there should be. I have been involved in several, including the people’s climate March in DC the first year of Trumps presidency - it Drew a pretty sizeable crowd with a whole lot of older adults. Simultaneous marches were held in hundreds of locations worldwide

Every year there are rallies for the planet on earth day. They get a day of press and then fade off the news cycle quickly.

[pecunia]

-  KER SNIP -

I think that can be true for people in science communications or for the handful of high profile researchers that go on CNN or whatever. But the average scientist isn't speaking to the public and, while I can't speak for all of them of course, I don't think they are feeling personally affronted by people taking the wrong conclusions, etc. It's like 10 steps before that point at which anyone is communicating to the public about any conclusions that they, amongst themselves (and hangers on like me), literally are saying that the data do not allow for x conclusions.

 I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

This thing has gone on longer than 20 years.  Back in the time of Reaganomics and modern Republicans really got  going, they had this leader in England named Thatcher.  At any rate, I think she may have had enough noodles in her think tank to realize reality, which is cool.  Here;s a quote from her:

"The danger of global warning is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations,"

So, I guess the 20 years could be pushed as much as 40 years.  This article pushes it back to 30 years.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-lady-took-strong-stance-on-climate-change/

As I said before, maybe the news reporters have been too laid back about this.  Many years ago, I used to work at a television station.  They had pieces for filler to use when they lacked headline news.  Human interest stuff may be used for filler like getting Sallie's cat out of a tree,  I'm thinking the news folk have been treating global warming like a cat story.

At least Joe Biden is trying to do something about it.

[OtherJen]

I had this thought.  Years ago, people did not like the Vietnam war.  There were big demonstrations.  The war ended.  I think some good was done.  Years age, people weren't happy that everyone didn't have civil rights.  There were big demonstrations.  Things didn't get perfect.  I think things got better.  Years before that women weren't allowed to vote.  There were big demonstrations.  Women got the vote.

So, now there is this thing about the whole world warming up.  Some say the oceans are becoming acid and it will kill the fish.  There is talk of the methane being released in the Arctic that will be a point of no return and the warming will essentially have a positive feedback loop.  The ice will continue to melt  Cities will be flooded.  There will be some awesome forest fires and hurricanes and stuff.  Most people believe they aren't making this stuff up.

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

Here they have this bill which includes the climate change stuff and they keep chipping it away like a melting ice cube.

It just seems like people may be a might too laid back where this issue is concerned.

It took 70 years and multiple generations of both suffrage fighters and male politicians for women to be granted the right to vote in the US at a federal level. The civil rights movement had an even longer trajectory, if you consider the 100-year span between the Civil War and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and co. marching on Wash. DC, Selma, etc. and the fact that it continues today.

[sui generis]

I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

Ahem... no. They have said that the whole time, too.
The only difference is some wording around amount and propability caused by political pressure of the deniers and of course scientific carefulness. 20 years ago the wording basically was "we don't think it is anything else, but at the moment we can't prove that more than 70% are caused by human activity".

Now the wording is "the whole change we see is definitely caused by humans".

That's what I said

[sonofsven]

I had this thought.  Years ago, people did not like the Vietnam war.  There were big demonstrations.  The war ended.  I think some good was done.  Years age, people weren't happy that everyone didn't have civil rights.  There were big demonstrations.  Things didn't get perfect.  I think things got better.  Years before that women weren't allowed to vote.  There were big demonstrations.  Women got the vote.

So, now there is this thing about the whole world warming up.  Some say the oceans are becoming acid and it will kill the fish.  There is talk of the methane being released in the Arctic that will be a point of no return and the warming will essentially have a positive feedback loop.  The ice will continue to melt  Cities will be flooded.  There will be some awesome forest fires and hurricanes and stuff.  Most people believe they aren't making this stuff up.

So how come there aren't the big demonstrations in the streets to get this fixed.  I see some little kids marching here and there, but people don't listen to kids.  It seems like this thing is more important than the Vietnam war, Civil Rights or women's suffrage because it affects everyone.

Here they have this bill which includes the climate change stuff and they keep chipping it away like a melting ice cube.

It just seems like people may be a might too laid back where this issue is concerned.

So what are the immediately visible results of all this? Floods, storms, landslides, fires. etc. These are all natural disasters that humans have always dealt with, so the change part of climate change is hard for people to place much importance on. "It's just the weather" resonates with a lot of people. If your house is washed away by a flood do you blame climate change or the floodwaters?

[PKFFW]

I think that can be true for people in science communications or for the handful of high profile researchers that go on CNN or whatever. But the average scientist isn't speaking to the public and, while I can't speak for all of them of course, I don't think they are feeling personally affronted by people taking the wrong conclusions, etc. It's like 10 steps before that point at which anyone is communicating to the public about any conclusions that they, amongst themselves (and hangers on like me), literally are saying that the data do not allow for x conclusions.

I didn't mean to imply anyone was personally affronted by people taking the wrong conclusions.

I meant to imply that I think at least a part of their reticence to be "pinned down" is because they know that if they are not 100% correct it is likely to do more harm than good to the cause.

I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

Humans have been talking about a lot of things that have turned out to be false all through history.  I'd prefer it if our scientists did actually stick to what they can reasonably prove to be true.  With the caveat of course that nothing can be known absolutely.

Having said that, I'll stipulate that I'm 100% on board with the human caused climate change issue and, not being a scientist, have been quite comfortable with that conclusion for some time.

[LennStar]

I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

Ahem... no. They have said that the whole time, too.
The only difference is some wording around amount and propability caused by political pressure of the deniers and of course scientific carefulness. 20 years ago the wording basically was "we don't think it is anything else, but at the moment we can't prove that more than 70% are caused by human activity".

Now the wording is "the whole change we see is definitely caused by humans".

That's what I said

No. "unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity." has been true for... lets say the late 70s. When the oil companies got reports from their scientists saying: "Our business activity is destroying livability on earth." and invested in spin doctors.

Now is that ALL the change is UNDOUBTEDLY caused by human activity. (a logical "and" here btw.)

Imagine you find a heap of dead bodies. 10 people not moving. 7 have a hole in their head, they have been shot.
You"unequivocally conclude" there is a gun murder.
But all you can definitely say is that 7 people have been killed by that gun murder. You think, based on circumstances, that the other 3 have been killed by the same person(s) but you cannot prove it, you even didn't found a gun wound on them at the moment.

That is your "20 years ago". 
In those 20 years the climate coroners have done their job, the dog squads have round around etc. Now you know those 3 have been killed by the same gun at the same time at the same place.
That is the last IPPC report.

[sui generis]

I mean think of what a huge deal it was that the recent IPCC report finally unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity. We've all been taking about it that way for like... 20 years? And this summer was the first time the IPCC was able to professionally come to that conclusion.

Ahem... no. They have said that the whole time, too.
The only difference is some wording around amount and propability caused by political pressure of the deniers and of course scientific carefulness. 20 years ago the wording basically was "we don't think it is anything else, but at the moment we can't prove that more than 70% are caused by human activity".

Now the wording is "the whole change we see is definitely caused by humans".

That's what I said

No. "unequivocally concluded that climate change results from human activity." has been true for... lets say the late 70s. When the oil companies got reports from their scientists saying: "Our business activity is destroying livability on earth." and invested in spin doctors.

Now is that ALL the change is UNDOUBTEDLY caused by human activity. (a logical "and" here btw.)

Imagine you find a heap of dead bodies. 10 people not moving. 7 have a hole in their head, they have been shot.
You"unequivocally conclude" there is a gun murder.
But all you can definitely say is that 7 people have been killed by that gun murder. You think, based on circumstances, that the other 3 have been killed by the same person(s) but you cannot prove it, you even didn't found a gun wound on them at the moment.

That is your "20 years ago". 
In those 20 years the climate coroners have done their job, the dog squads have round around etc. Now you know those 3 have been killed by the same gun at the same time at the same place.
That is the last IPPC report.

You are failing to read my post with precision and are attributing to me comments that I did not make.

[pecunia]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

[Kris]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

Humans aren't that great at thinking logically. But then, don't forget the influence of the multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade disinformation campaign launched by big oil and gas companies, and aided by the politicians who are in their pockets. In the face of that, logic has even more trouble struggling through.

[nereo]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

I think there are some parallels to social security. 
Most anyone who's honest sees there will soon be a shortfall.  We have official reports detailing exactly how bad over a series of different scenarios.  On the face of it, the problem isn't that hard to solve, though it will involve some real action and some additional burdens.  But the longer we wait the harder it will be to fix.

We've known this for decades but don't do what's necessary to fix the problem, in part because every potential solution has a strong lobby arguing why it should be done another way.


.... of course the analogy breaks down over the severity.  A 74% cut in estimated payouts is still manageable for most, whereas the fallout from a 2ºC+ planet is far more severe for far more people, and is a global instead of national problem.

[sui generis]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

I think you're essentially right, but that's not quite how the anti-nuclear waste people are thinking about it.

I think there are several factors, the biggest of which is that people don't know about scientific advances in this area and how safe it may be to store the waste. There have been a few major nuclear power traumas in the lifetimes of people with political power and loud voices and that has left a mark. They aren't super open to hearing about how different this is.

Secondly, I suspect there's something there that also triggers a bit of the disgust factor especially for people who live in the communities or states where it is to be hosted. Why do they get everyone else's dangerous and disgusting trash pawned off on them?  More than simple NIMBYism. But the bottom line is they perceive it to be a current danger and a current harm (physically, and reputationally) as against a long term solution.

They might even be willing to agree that it's worth doing, it's just that the proposal to put the waste in their county or state is totally inappropriate, but yes if you put the waste somewhere more appropriate, they'd be all for it. As you can imagine, mysteriously or coincidentally, every potential site is just unfortunately not the appropriate one.

[PDXTabs]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

I think you're essentially right, but that's not quite how the anti-nuclear waste people are thinking about it.

I think there are several factors, the biggest of which is that people don't know about scientific advances in this area and how safe it may be to store the waste. There have been a few major nuclear power traumas in the lifetimes of people with political power and loud voices and that has left a mark. They aren't super open to hearing about how different this is.

Secondly, I suspect there's something there that also triggers a bit of the disgust factor especially for people who live in the communities or states where it is to be hosted. Why do they get everyone else's dangerous and disgusting trash pawned off on them?  More than simple NIMBYism. But the bottom line is they perceive it to be a current danger and a current harm (physically, and reputationally) as against a long term solution.

They might even be willing to agree that it's worth doing, it's just that the proposal to put the waste in their county or state is totally inappropriate, but yes if you put the waste somewhere more appropriate, they'd be all for it. As you can imagine, mysteriously or coincidentally, every potential site is just unfortunately not the appropriate one.

Yea, with nuclear energy it's much easier to point to concrete failures and say "tell that to the people who lost their farms in Belarus!"

[pecunia]

OK OK I get it now.  People aren't out there protesting the global warming thing because it's not an immediate thing.  It won't kill you tomorrow.  It's like a bill that doesn't seem to be due right now.  Besides, it's change it's a hassle.

Then I think a little longer.  It's about the time thing.  Don't worry if it's a long way off.  That ice won't be melted tomorrow.

So, in my opinion, nuclear power seems to be one of the best ways to fight the global warming thing.  Oh, but people are set dead against it.  They proclaim it's the waste.  It can last damned near forever.  "Yeh, but you just need to put it deep in some ancient rock formation, I tell them."

"Oh no!" They proclaim.  Some future civilization may dig it up. 

I mean the time frame for this concern seems longer than the climate change time frame.  If the global warming gets bad enough, I'm talking thermal runaway like Venus, there won't be anybody to dig it up.

There isn't much waste in a relative capacity and they have new reactors that recycle a lot of the spent fuel now besides.

Am I wrong or isn't this just a little strange thinking?  You got this big problem that could be fixed, but you get this little problem that you are worried about.

I think you're essentially right, but that's not quite how the anti-nuclear waste people are thinking about it.

I think there are several factors, the biggest of which is that people don't know about scientific advances in this area and how safe it may be to store the waste. There have been a few major nuclear power traumas in the lifetimes of people with political power and loud voices and that has left a mark. They aren't super open to hearing about how different this is.

Secondly, I suspect there's something there that also triggers a bit of the disgust factor especially for people who live in the communities or states where it is to be hosted. Why do they get everyone else's dangerous and disgusting trash pawned off on them?  More than simple NIMBYism. But the bottom line is they perceive it to be a current danger and a current harm (physically, and reputationally) as against a long term solution.

They might even be willing to agree that it's worth doing, it's just that the proposal to put the waste in their county or state is totally inappropriate, but yes if you put the waste somewhere more appropriate, they'd be all for it. As you can imagine, mysteriously or coincidentally, every potential site is just unfortunately not the appropriate one.

Yea, with nuclear energy it's much easier to point to concrete failures and say "tell that to the people who lost their farms in Belarus!"

Looks like they are farming on that land now.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chernobyl-radiation-belarus-farm-produce-milk-high-level-radiation/

It doesn't sound too dangerous in the short term, but in time radionuclides can accumulate in different parts of the body.  DOE facilities give folks a periodic "Whole body count" to see what dose is being picked up.  Past predictions have said that thousands of people would be killed by the Chernobyl accident in upcoming years.  Sometimes it's hard to tell a natural death from an early one.

I guess those farmers look at their radiation exposure like a lot of people look at climate change including many (most) US politicians.  Those dairy farmers are just kicking the milk can down the road.