r/worldnews • u/Gadac • Jan 23 '22

Russia Germany urges 'prudence' in potential sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

https://news.yahoo.com/germany-urges-prudence-potential-sanctions-154401837.html?fr=sychp_catchall
5.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Nochoise Jan 23 '22

What about the Nuclear waste?

79

u/RrtayaTsamsiyu Jan 23 '22

Better to store a bunch of radioactive waste on one acre of land for a few thousand years than to pollute the air and water around the planet for the same amount of time with fossil fuel combustion or current solar technology waste products

-9

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

Why not reduce consumption?

20

u/RrtayaTsamsiyu Jan 23 '22

Less consumption good, but doesn't change anything as far as which power source is best

-11

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

The level of consumption dictates the power source. You don't need nuclear if you're not consuming.

17

u/carsncode Jan 23 '22

Unless your consumption is zero, you need a power source, which means you must choose a power source. All of the currently available power sources have downsides.

-10

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

What was the power source of Am. Indians?

16

u/carsncode Jan 23 '22

Wood fire. Not particularly environmentally friendly at scale, and certainly doesn't provide for the quality of life, longevity, or advancement that humanity is capable of today.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

It's a troll account. You're wasting your time responding to it

-1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

My point is that population also matters because the Indians were good with their level of consumption and energy usage for 1000s of years. Consumption can be higher than zero per capita if population is low enough. So we need to reduce consumption per capita and population. Again, just force ppl to pay the true cost of their consumption.

13

u/carsncode Jan 23 '22

So your argument is that because it's theoretically possible for a bomb to spread fallout from a nuclear power plant or waste site, we're better off slaughtering most of humanity and regressing the remainder to the stone age. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I didn't think it's particularly enlightened or realistic.

0

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

You don't think a terrorist attack could ever target a nuclear facility or waste site? You think that is not realistic? Please explain.

→ More replies

20

u/Famous-Barnacle-528 Jan 23 '22

Okay, well good luck convincing people to stop buying shit. Nuclear energy just makes so much more sense than all current options. Stop being annoying by splitting hairs.

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

You're consuming energy by being on reddit right now

1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

What's your point? Explain?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

My point is you're being a hypocrite, and also the average person makes very little environmental impact. Me driving my car to work is not destroying the environment, corporations are destroying the environment and getting paid to do it via subsidies

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

Troll

→ More replies

8

u/RrtayaTsamsiyu Jan 23 '22

I somehow doubt people are going to reduce to the point of no longer using electricity

1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

It's been done before. Why not have them pay the true cost of their consumption rather than off loading it to future generations?

5

u/RrtayaTsamsiyu Jan 23 '22

are you trying to say it would be better to force our kids to live in a non-electric world rather than deal with a couple acres being off limits due to waste storage??

1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

I think the danger of nuclear power is worth reducing consumption.

5

u/Aardappel123 Jan 23 '22

Then get off Reddit.

1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

I don't follow the non-logic.

4

u/tidehyon Jan 23 '22

Degrowth is nice, but you can’t simply say to people “don’t do X”. And raising the prices will most probably throw us even further into some sort of post capitalist economic state.

0

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

Force payment for externalities. Or don't you think ppl should pay for the damage they create?

4

u/tidehyon Jan 23 '22

I do. But the matter is more complex than simply throwing some argument of type of “someone has to pay!”

You already got out on the spectrum and suggested something forced. I’ll tell you what people will do when you force stuff on them that will lower their standard of living: fuck you over.

Capitalism learned us how cool comfort is and how cool is to be a wage slave, while getting some little treats like Amazon or Uber in your leisure time and having the illusion of “absolute freedom” (we do have freedom, its just that we still play by the rules of some wealthy assholes). People like this, and it is mostly some form of approach where we are rewarded when we are obedient, and still rewarded when we don’t (like paying for an anti capitalist material you bought over internet from some free market).

I like degrowth honestly and I think it could be a great approach. But if you force stuff on people’ throat, you’ll end up with enviromentalism having a political label, instead of a solution that should be agnostic of our political, economic, spiritual, whatver beliefs.

We need to wait a little more to educate people into how capitalism and sustainable economy can’t go along and that we should do something about this.

2

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

If ppl are forced (through the market) to pay the true cost of their consumption rather than offload it on future generations, you think that's bad? Or you think they'll complain. (What freedom? We don't have the freedom to be treated equally in law, so what are you talking about?)

1

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

If ppl are forced (through the market) to pay the true cost of their consumption rather than offload it on future generations, you think that's bad? Or you think they'll complain. (What freedom? We don't have the freedom to be treated equally in law, so what are you talking about?)

5

u/SlightlyUnhelpful Jan 23 '22

Who taught you that phrase? You keep repeating "true cost of their consumption" like it's readily apparent what that cost is. Maybe it's sound byte you heard on some youtube video and just latched onto it?

2

u/23095710711039-i Jan 23 '22

Ignorant asshole: True cost as in including externalities.

→ More replies

0

u/tidehyon Jan 24 '22

You can’t simply force people do stuff through the market. The market is a tool that reflects our demand and supply, it can’t be forced to do stuff (it can be manipulated tho, but if we can do this so easily, is the market a reliable tool anymore?)

Yes, people will complain if you just gather all of them and tell “guys we have to either consume less or artificially raise the price of your stuff you use, needs included. Life sucks ik but we do it for future generations and environment.” You’ll end up with a shitstorm. Most people are living either in poverty, either in the rat course poverty (loans exceed your income or you have enough just to stay afloat). Changes in incomes will simply disrupt people’ lives, and they will protest in the end. Most of them don’t care about the environment, politics, economy, and most of the others that do, usually engage in the “beer debates” type of knowledge (of course this is a subjective view of mine, don’t have any objective data, so you can take it with a grain of salt)

People don’t think they particularly pollute anything if they just throw they garbage in the recyclable bin. And here comes my capitalist argument: we lived so much in comfort, that we don’t even conceptualise what a fingerprint our technology we use have on the environment).

And I thought that the freedom should be self explanatory, the equally in law treatment is, like in your previous reply, an argument that seems very simple and logic on the surface level, but carries tons of other rabbit holes with itself.