Green Communism

[paolo22]

Hello, I'm new here, seems like a nice place, I might stay a while.

Anyway. I'm interested on the opinion of a modern day communist world, with the kleptocracy of the bourgeoisie dismantled. What do you all see in technological change?

In our current world, technology is almost deformed and divided to create the perfect world for market instead of compatibility, quality and self sustainability.

In 2008, technologies are available that could change the face of communism forever, from red.... to green.

1) Energy...Solar panels, Wind Turbines, Hybrid Engines and commune transportation make it possible for energy to be available and abundant forever without harming nature, and without a massive working force to sustain it. This would ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress.

2) Hydroponics, Aquaponics, and other growing technologies make it possible for popularized home-growing and city farms that could feed the world 10 times over year round with FRESH and SAFE food. This would also ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress.

When these two elements combine we create the perfect cycle for for a commune society; less work load means more intellectual working force, plus healthier foods makes it possible to progress human nature to an even better rate of evolution, while at the same time preserving our planet.

It is undeniable that communism and Green technologies are made for each other, visit my site for more info. Green-Revolutionary.com

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) Energy...Solar panels, Wind Turbines, Hybrid Engines and commune transportation make it possible for energy to be available and abundant forever without harming nature, and without a massive working force to sustain it. This would ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress.

That's great, but how does nuclear power fit into this? Breeder reactors and reprocessing would enable nuclear power to provide the high baseload that advanced technological society requires (especially so if transport systems have undergone electrification), and do so for a long time, certainly long enough for nuclear fusion to reach the break-even point.

This is especially important if such high-tech societies do their own manufacturing, as opposed to exporting the majority of it to the Third World like they do currently.


2) Hydroponics, Aquaponics, and other growing technologies make it possible for popularized home-growing and city farms that could feed the world 10 times over year round with FRESH and SAFE food. This would also ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress. I've certainly heard some impressive things about hydroponics. What the Wiki article doesn't seem to make clear though, is whether hydroponics is conducted mainly indoors or outdoors. If outdoors, it makes even more sense to have nuclear power, especially if vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) is implemented.

A huge variety of crops and stock could then be raised 24/7/365, regardless of prevailing weather conditions or climate, and in great quantities.


When these two elements combine we create the perfect cycle for for a commune society; less work load means more intellectual working force, plus healthier foods makes it possible to progress human nature to an even better rate of evolution, while at the same time preserving our planet.Like I said earlier, I'm curious as to what place, if any, nuclear power has in this scheme. Modern science and engineering requires large amounts of energy, such as space programs, particle accelerators, automated factories, fusion research, electric rail networks, even previously low-energy disciplines like Biology are becoming increasingly computerised, such as the Human Proteome Folding Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Proteome_Folding_Project), which uses the Internet as a distributed computing net. Not to mention all the other things the Internet is used for - servers, personal computers, LAN and WAN networks - just look at THIS (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet_map_1024.jpg) partial map of the internet and try to guess how many energy-consuming machines are hooked up to it.

If we don't have the energy to run all that stuff, it seems kind of pointless to aim for a more intellectual workforce. We have the means to unlock the vast amounts of energy contained within the atom, but it is tragically under-utilised, which has a deleterious effect on the environment with the widespread use of fossil fuels.

[paolo22]

If we don't have the energy to run all that stuff, it seems kind of pointless to aim for a more intellectual workforce. We have the means to unlock the vast amounts of energy contained within the atom, but it is tragically under-utilised, which has a deleterious effect on the environment with the widespread use of fossil fuels.

I don't agree with you when you say having intellectual workers is pointless, I think thats the biggest point, my friend.

In reality we could use anything, as long as it's reduced from the ridiculous amounts being used now. Consumers use too much of what they don't need. I think we could operate many types of green technology without harming the atmosphere if we do it responsibly. It was expected that most would agree :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't agree with you when you say having intellectual workers is pointless, I think thats the biggest point, my friend.

I'm not saying that having an intellectual workforce is pointless in general, only that it would be pointless if there isn't sufficient energy to take advantage of it.


In reality we could use anything, as long as it's reduced from the ridiculous amounts being used now. Consumers use too much of what they don't need.

How much is too much? How is "need" defined?


I think we could operate many types of green technology without harming the atmosphere if we do it responsibly. It was expected that most would agree :)

I'm not debating the "green-ness" of renewables, I'm saying that I'm skeptical that they will provide the high baseload that advanced technological society (which needs an intellectual workforce) requires.

[paolo22]

I think that if wide scale use of new technology was implemented for self sustainability instead of profit and market growth then much more power could be harnessed. I think that the biggest scam of the capitalists was to make us believe we have to go to them for energy, when in reality it is all around us.

Solidarity is being forgotten here, we must not be divided.

[RedSabine]

I think that a (mostly) planned green economy is the ideal economy for communism, an economy that is more or less infinitely renewable is what will be necissary not only for the continueing of communism, but of the human species altogether.

Also! I think that the ultimate goal of the socialist/communist world/economy is an intellectual populace. A populace that can think for itsself and make its actions with intention, rather than at the behest of an economic motive.

Nuclear (I think) would serve a great deal in the socialist stage (and even in the communist stage). It's quite clean, and somewhat renewable.

Green=Red.

[Charles Xavier]

Cuba is an example of green socialism.

[scarletghoul]

I dislike greenism and the whole greenist movement...
Nuclear energy is cool though.

No I can not be arsed to argue. Ha.

[RedSabine]

Cuba is an example of green socialism.

how so?

[bretty]

how so?

I think the world wildlife fund said they were the only sustainable country on the planet. I could be wrong, I forget what the article said.

[Charles Xavier]

how so?
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/410/23412

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that if wide scale use of new technology was implemented for self sustainability instead of profit and market growth then much more power could be harnessed. I think that the biggest scam of the capitalists was to make us believe we have to go to them for energy, when in reality it is all around us.

Human society has mostly got to the point where it needs concentrated energy sources - and that includes things like renewables.


Solidarity is being forgotten here, we must not be divided.On the contrary, honest criticism is what seperates solidarity from sycophancy.

[Vanguard1917]

Environmentalism is antithetical to Marxism. Therefore, attempts to reconcile the two will always lead to the distortion of the latter. I explained in detail why this is, in a legthy post in a recent thread, also started by paolo22: http://www.revleft.com/vb/modern-communism-green-t95715/index.html?p=1298799

[butterfly]

There are different forms of environmentalism and some are compatible with marxist theory.

[Vanguard1917]

There are different forms of environmentalism and some are compatible with marxist theory.

If there are any forms of environmentalism which agree that humanity must learn to master nature, subject nature to its will and dominate nature, through mass industrial development and technological innovation, that all production must be industrialised, that industrial output must be radically stepped up in order to allow an increase in mass consumption levels, and that capitalism is a flawed system because it criminally holds back the mass development of society's productive forces - then, yeah, such forms of 'environmentalism' would be compatible with Marxism.

Since, in the real world, no such environmentalism exists, and since in the real world all environmentalists oppose the central viewpoint of Marxism concerning human progress, we can safely say that there is no real world environmentalist ideology which is compatible with Marxism. Environmentalist ideas, as they exist in the real world, are diametrically opposed to Marxism.

[Charles Xavier]

Sustainability is key to any form of Socialism.

Marxists are here to bring humanity to an elevated level of production and existence. A humanity that builds itself with an eye towards the future. We only want to take from the land what we need. We want to reduce pollution and increase health standards. We want to make a world sustainable.

Vanguard 1917 has learned by rote and vulgar memorization and doesn't understand this. Communists don't plan on destroying the environment. The essence of Marxism isn't anti-environment.

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard 1917 has learned by rote and vulgar memorization and doesn't understand this. Communists don't plan on destroying the environment. The essence of Marxism isn't anti-environment.

Of course Marxism is not 'anti-environment'. That's not what i said. I said that it is anti-environmentalism - i.e the political ideology.

[butterfly]

Dominating the planet should entail complete lack of vulnerability to the elements, which means that events like Cyclone Nargis or the Sichuan earthquake would have to be averted.
If the human race can achieve that, then great.
Humanity needs to learn how to protect itself, whilst maximising the standard of living for ALL, through mass industrial development and technological innovation.
Marx stressed the need to hand on the planet to future generations in an improved state so that they too may progress. He was an environmental revolutionary of his time.

Anti-environment and anti-environmentalism are synonymous terms.
The environmental movement is broad and not necessarily associated with political ideology.
It's certainly not centred on holding back human progress.

[S.O.I]

If there are any forms of environmentalism which agree that humanity must learn to master nature, subject nature to its will and dominate nature, through mass industrial development and technological innovation, that all production must be industrialised, that industrial output must be radically stepped up in order to allow an increase in mass consumption levels, and that capitalism is a flawed system because it criminally holds back the mass development of society's productive forces - then, yeah, such forms of 'environmentalism' would be compatible with Marxism.


im suddenly not very fond of marxism anymore.

[Q]

In the Netherlands the current electricity production is about 25 GW (although it was a while back that I read this and currently couldn't find any sources on the matter). If we put for 1500 Watts (of peakproduction) of solarpanels on the roof of each house (about 4 million in the Netherlands), then we have enough to produce 60GW (of optimal production).

The only question is how to efficiently store this energy. I see lots of potential in fuelcells for this. But also other creative solutions can be found, for example I read an article a while back in which cooling cells were hooked up to windmill parks: if the windmills overproduced energy the extra energy was used to extra cool the cells (from -18 C to -20 C for example), if there was a shortage the cooling cells would get a bit less energy. Fucking brilliant if you ask me :)

Also, we could switch to more energy efficient tools. If we switch from the classic lightbulb to LED lightbulbs for example (which use a mere 2 to 3% of the energy needed by a classic lightbulb), we could save gigawatts in the Netherlands alone!

Socialism will know a CO2 free economy :)

[Lynx]

If there are any forms of environmentalism which agree that humanity must learn to master nature, subject nature to its will and dominate nature, through mass industrial development and technological innovation, that all production must be industrialised, that industrial output must be radically stepped up in order to allow an increase in mass consumption levels, and that capitalism is a flawed system because it criminally holds back the mass development of society's productive forces - then, yeah, such forms of 'environmentalism' would be compatible with Marxism.

Since, in the real world, no such environmentalism exists, and since in the real world all environmentalists oppose the central viewpoint of Marxism concerning human progress, we can safely say that there is no real world environmentalist ideology which is compatible with Marxism. Environmentalist ideas, as they exist in the real world, are diametrically opposed to Marxism.
Spectacular false dichotomy and an impressive polemic. Kudos.

[Termite]

I don't see how environmentalism is in opposition to Marxism. Most environmentalists work towards a future where humans are self-sufficient and do not harm the environment they are in, so that their children can live in a better world. That is the crux of many of the environmentalist movements, and I don't see how this is in any sort of direct opposition to Marxism.

As Dimitrov said, sustainability is key to socialism, and going green is the best way to make a sustainable society.

And on the nuclear energy front, I'm going to have to disagree that nuclear energy is the way to go. While it is indeed powerful, I think it would be MUCH better to instead make heavy use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy. If enough advancement is made in geothermal energy, it alone could provide most if not all the energy required for a Marxist society. Nuclear power should be explored, but it carries with it dangers and the issue of radioactive-waste disposal.

[Q]

And on the nuclear energy front, I'm going to have to disagree that nuclear energy is the way to go. While it is indeed powerful, I think it would be MUCH better to instead make heavy use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy. If enough advancement is made in geothermal energy, it alone could provide most if not all the energy required for a Marxist society. Nuclear power should be explored, but it carries with it dangers and the issue of radioactive-waste disposal.

I agree completely with this. However, research into nuclear fusion should continue as it has tremendous possibilities at a zero danger or waste level.

Besides the old, but valid, waste argument there are other reasons to oppose fission:
1. Uranium 238, the main fuel used in fission reactors, is finite. If I remember correctly, most scientific sources agree that for current usage levels there is still enough for another 60 years. Clearly, if we build more reactors, the supplies of Uranium 238 will diminish even faster.
2. Even if we decide to build new fission reactors, it takes about ten years for them to become cost efficient (as opposed to for example coal stations, that cost 6 years).
3. There are still no "safe" reactors. It'll take decades of more research and a lot of money to get there. Current predictions estimate the first industrial "safe" fission reactor at around 2040.
4. The winning of uranium 238 is highly polluting, both for water (vast amounts of water are used in the process) and air (you don't think those digging machines run on solar power, ey?). In fact, if you calculate the whole process from digging to the actual fission, fission reactors boost about 30% of the CO2 in the air compared to a natural gas fueled electricity plant. This is dependant on how rich the grounds are of said uranium. The 30% figure is based on "rich layers" where you get 1 kilo of Uranium for 1000 kilo's of waste rock (0.1%). If the figure goes down to 0.02% the CO2 goes up to 60% of that of a gas plant and with 0.01% a fission reactor is responsible for more CO2 then a conventional gas plant!
5. Nuclear energy is expensive. The currently build European Pressurizedwater Reactor (EPR - the "future" of Europes nuclear power stations) in Finland will cost between 4.5 and 4.7 billion euro's. To be cheaper then electricity by conventional stations, the cost should go down to 3.2 billion, at 4.8 billion costs nuclear power would be as expensive as electricity by gas or coals. In contrast planned EPR stations will cost between 5 billion (according to a French power company) and 8.9 billion euro's (according to a report from Standard & Poor).
6. Nuclear energy surpresses green energy. The problem with nuclear power stations is that they cannot run on a lower mode. It's running at 100% all the time. This is the reason why France, which has a huge amount of nuclear power stations, exports its electricity very cheaply every night when everyone sleeps and demand is low. This is antagonal to green energy, which is fluctual by definition. We only have one powergrid, if there is no room for fluctuating green energy, then green energy will never be massively adopted.

One more argument on waste:
7. Building facilities that can safely keep radioactive material for ~100 000 years are obviously extremely expensive due to the long time period. How expensive? There are no official figures and nuclear lobbyists often conveniently "forget" to mention this bit.

[Vanguard1917]

Marx stressed the need to hand on the planet to future generations in an improved state so that they too may progress.

Yes, of course. Marx called for industrial progress to make the earth a place better suited to human inhabitation. That's why he opposed capitalism and advocated socialism, i.e. a more advanced mode of industrial production.


He was an environmental revolutionary of his time

On the contrary, Marx was bitterly opposed to the environmentalists of his day, e.g. the philosopher Daumer, who called for 'sacrifice of the human to the natural' and romanticised nature. Marx and Engels called such ideas 'reactionary even in comparison with Christianity'. In reply to Daumer's nonsense, they emphasised that 'modern natural science... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature', and in response to Daumer's anti-development countryside worship they stated that 'it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines.' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/daumer.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/daumer.htm))

Marxism is irreconcilably opposed to the all of the reactionary ideas of environmentalism. See the thread i linked earlier for a more in-depth discussion.



Anti-environment and anti-environmentalism are synonymous terms.


No, not at all. I'm not anti-environment; i think that the state of our material surroundings is absolutely vital to our wellbeing as people. That's why i, as a Marxist, advocate greater industrial and technological progress to improve our environment in the interests of humanity. And that's why i'm against the anti-development Malthusian political ideology of environmnetalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

The worst component of "environmentalism" as an ideology is the false notion that animals should be entitled to rights, and it is unfortunate that many who see themselves as leftists have also accepted this notion, such that if anyone on the left actually contests this notion then they are instantly portrayed as "cruel" and "oppressive", as if humans have some kind of moral duty to protect the welfare of beings who are not even part of the same species as us. The only criterion that we should use to determine how we behave towards animals is whether the impact on our own species will be positive - and in light of this criterion, socialism should allow for animals to be used as test subjects without any of the current restrictions which limit the ability of the scientific community to pursue medical advances.

[butterfly]

Yes, of course. Marx called for industrial progress to make the earth a place better suited to human inhabitation. That's why he opposed capitalism and advocated socialism, i.e. a more advanced mode of industrial production.

A further advanced mode of industrial production would incorperate modern technology to it's fullest potential as well as taking into account the ecological aspects of production and the effect on human quality of life to ensure sustainable, maximised industrial output.

On the contrary, Marx was bitterly opposed to the environmentalists of his day, e.g. the philosopher Daumer, who called for 'sacrifice of the human to the natural' and romanticised nature. Marx and Engels called such ideas 'reactionary even in comparison with Christianity'.
That would be fair conclusion, from what you describe Daumer must have been misguided.

Marxism is irreconcilably opposed to the all of the reactionary ideas of environmentalism.
If you read what Marx had to say, as if you were reading a gospel, then probably, however Marx is based on science.
Plant and animal life does not supercede that of human life, it merely supports it.

No, not at all. I'm not anti-environment; i think that the state of our material surroundings is absolutely vital to our wellbeing as people. That's why i, as a Marxist, advocate greater industrial and technological progress to improve our environment in the interests of humanity. And that's why i'm against the anti-development Malthusian political ideology of environmnetalism.
Aside from the last sentence, I completely agree.
'environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement, centred on the concern for the conservation and improvment of the environment...in recognition of humanity as a participant in ecosystems, the environmental movement is centred on ecology, health and human rights.'- Wiki

People lack confidence in technology so they call for the reduction in mass consumption levels as it appears to be the only solution and of coarse action on part of those willing to take it is distorted by the market system, which is why I belive you hold such false contempt against environmentalism.
I suggest you offer alternatives to the misguided instead of attacking them, generally this is what differentiates revleft from most other politically-oriented forums.


Bobkindles; I do belive animal right's is a seperate ideology, one that I disagree with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And on the nuclear energy front, I'm going to have to disagree that nuclear energy is the way to go. While it is indeed powerful, I think it would be MUCH better to instead make heavy use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy. If enough advancement is made in geothermal energy, it alone could provide most if not all the energy required for a Marxist society. Nuclear power should be explored, but it carries with it dangers and the issue of radioactive-waste disposal.

Nuclear waste disposal is not an unsolveable problem. Reprocessing can significantly reduce the volume of waste as well as extending the energy extractable per original unit of uranium by a factor of more than 60.

Not that a nuclear reactor produces all that much waste in the first place - unlike fossil fuel plants, especially coal, nuclear power plants don't spew radioactive soot and ash into the environment more or less untreated.


1. Uranium 238, the main fuel used in fission reactors, is finite. If I remember correctly, most scientific sources agree that for current usage levels there is still enough for another 60 years. Clearly, if we build more reactors, the supplies of Uranium 238 will diminish even faster.

Allow me to let you in a on a little-known fact - there has been no uranium prospecting since the 1970s. Why? Because there has been no need. So if current sources of uranium prove inadequate, there is nothing preventing us from looking for more. In addition to reprocessing and breeder reactors extending the fuel cycle, reactors can also be designed to use Thorium, another fissionable fuel which is three times as abundant as uranium, which like uranium can be reprocessed and used in breeder reactors.


2. Even if we decide to build new fission reactors, it takes about ten years for them to become cost efficient (as opposed to for example coal stations, that cost 6 years).So what? That's only because fossil fuels are cheaper than fissionables. But believe me, that's changing. Also, if we never make the initial investment in a decent nuclear power grid, it'll never be economical because we won't have the infrastructure in place. In other words, if we start building more nuclear reactors now, it will be cheaper in the future.


3. There are still no "safe" reactors. It'll take decades of more research and a lot of money to get there. Current predictions estimate the first industrial "safe" fission reactor at around 2040.Nuclear reactor are already "safe". Compared to other power sources, nuclear has killed few people.


4. The winning of uranium 238 is highly polluting, both for water (vast amounts of water are used in the process) and air (you don't think those digging machines run on solar power, ey?). In fact, if you calculate the whole process from digging to the actual fission, fission reactors boost about 30% of the CO2 in the air compared to a natural gas fueled electricity plant. This is dependant on how rich the grounds are of said uranium. The 30% figure is based on "rich layers" where you get 1 kilo of Uranium for 1000 kilo's of waste rock (0.1%). If the figure goes down to 0.02% the CO2 goes up to 60% of that of a gas plant and with 0.01% a fission reactor is responsible for more CO2 then a conventional gas plant!I'm now convinced you've simply cut and pasted these points from a Greenpeace website or some other organisation which is anti-nuclear as a point of ideology over anything else.

They love to claim to have made "calculations" without actually showing their working. I'd love to see what assumptions were made in those calculations.

Let's ignore the fact that coal stations require significant volumes of rock and earth to be dug up, and that the fuel itself produces CO2 when consumed, meaning that a coal plant produces more CO2 throughout it's entire working life, because it's more convenient for Green ideologues.

Let's also ignore the fact that coal has a lower energy density, meaning more coal has to be dug out of the ground and shipped to the power plant for the same amount of energy as uranium.


5. Nuclear energy is expensive. The currently build European Pressurizedwater Reactor (EPR - the "future" of Europes nuclear power stations) in Finland will cost between 4.5 and 4.7 billion euro's. To be cheaper then electricity by conventional stations, the cost should go down to 3.2 billion, at 4.8 billion costs nuclear power would be as expensive as electricity by gas or coals. In contrast planned EPR stations will cost between 5 billion (according to a French power company) and 8.9 billion euro's (according to a report from Standard & Poor).Building important infrastructure is always expensive, and with typical capitalist mismanagement cost overruns are inevitable. This is not something unique to nuclear power.

Coal stations are cheaper due to economic factors, true, but they are also vastly more polluting, and you can't recycle the fuel.

Why is it that environmentalists love to encourage us to spend more money on greener solutions, yet when it comes to nuclear power, they immediately become stingy gits?


6. Nuclear energy surpresses green energy. The problem with nuclear power stations is that they cannot run on a lower mode. It's running at 100% all the time. This is the reason why France, which has a huge amount of nuclear power stations, exports its electricity very cheaply every night when everyone sleeps and demand is low. This is antagonal to green energy, which is fluctual by definition. We only have one powergrid, if there is no room for fluctuating green energy, then green energy will never be massively adopted.Oh no, cheap power, we can't be having that! :rolleyes:

Why is it bad to export energy again? What's so great about having energy sources that fluctuate? Especially if one intends to do one's own manufacturing, instead of paying some kid on the other side of the globe 2p a day to do it instead?

Why is it OK to pay through the nose constantly for energy derived solely from renewables, but not OK to pay more for a nuclear power plant that pollutes less than a cheaper coal plant, and if the nuclear energy infrastructure is built up like it has been in France, cheaper in the long run?


One more argument on waste:
7. Building facilities that can safely keep radioactive material for ~100 000 years are obviously extremely expensive due to the long time period. How expensive? There are no official figures and nuclear lobbyists often conveniently "forget" to mention this bit."Obviously"? How is it "obviously" extremely expensive? Firstly, the longer the half-life of radioactive waste, the less intensive the radiation given out by said waste. Secondly, waste storage isn't exactly an energy intensive process - there are basically no moving parts that use up energy and wear out, and it's easy to design sealed waste units that don't corrode as soon as you look at them.

[paolo22]

What a discussion this has created, I'm very pleased with the responses from all members. Thank you for taking the time to visit Green Revolutionary, and I hope you all realize that this is a Marxist website, with the intention of harnessing technologies that are very effective, and not being harnessed effectively by capitalists.

We have new technology, it's not something we cannot ignore, and it's very socialist technology. Free energy is something that must be advocated by Marxists. This is the point we're making at Green Revolutionary.

With new technology Marxism is becoming more and more practical, not to say it wasn't already. This is simply a resource to spread revolutionary thought.

We as Marxists need to convince the people, and doing so with dogmatic and outdated ideas is not going to work. We need to keep up-to-date.

Green-Revolutionary....... it's only a color, it's only technology, not an "ism".

Thanks again.

[Q]

And on the nuclear energy front, I'm going to have to disagree that nuclear energy is the way to go. While it is indeed powerful, I think it would be MUCH better to instead make heavy use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy. If enough advancement is made in geothermal energy, it alone could provide most if not all the energy required for a Marxist society. Nuclear power should be explored, but it carries with it dangers and the issue of radioactive-waste disposal.
Nuclear waste disposal is not an unsolveable problem. Reprocessing can significantly reduce the volume of waste as well as extending the energy extractable per original unit of uranium by a factor of more than 60.

Not that a nuclear reactor produces all that much waste in the first place - unlike fossil fuel plants, especially coal, nuclear power plants don't spew radioactive soot and ash into the environment more or less untreated.
It is indeed true that reusing fuel is reducing the amount of the waste problem with a factor three. More importantly, the dangerous radiation period is being brought back to "just" 5 to 10 thousand years (as opposed to 100 000 in the socalled "open cycle" of not reusing waste). But this still leaves hundreds of generations of our children with the waste of a product we now enjoy.



1. Uranium 238, the main fuel used in fission reactors, is finite. If I remember correctly, most scientific sources agree that for current usage levels there is still enough for another 60 years. Clearly, if we build more reactors, the supplies of Uranium 238 will diminish even faster.
Allow me to let you in a on a little-known fact - there has been no uranium prospecting since the 1970s. Why? Because there has been no need. So if current sources of uranium prove inadequate, there is nothing preventing us from looking for more. In addition to reprocessing and breeder reactors extending the fuel cycle, reactors can also be designed to use Thorium, another fissionable fuel which is three times as abundant as uranium, which like uranium can be reprocessed and used in breeder reactors.
I didn't know about the prospecting of uranium, could you source that perhaps? And how far away are industrial thorium reactors still? And if already possible, why isn't it used today?



2. Even if we decide to build new fission reactors, it takes about ten years for them to become cost efficient (as opposed to for example coal stations, that cost 6 years).
So what? That's only because fossil fuels are cheaper than fissionables. But believe me, that's changing. Also, if we never make the initial investment in a decent nuclear power grid, it'll never be economical because we won't have the infrastructure in place. In other words, if we start building more nuclear reactors now, it will be cheaper in the future.
My argument was a logical extension of my earlier about depleting sources of fuel.



3. There are still no "safe" reactors. It'll take decades of more research and a lot of money to get there. Current predictions estimate the first industrial "safe" fission reactor at around 2040.
Nuclear reactor are already "safe". Compared to other power sources, nuclear has killed few people.
Compared to conventional powersources, perhaps. But my point is not to say that nuclear energy is worse than conventional powersources, just that it isn't a "green" solution.



4. The winning of uranium 238 is highly polluting, both for water (vast amounts of water are used in the process) and air (you don't think those digging machines run on solar power, ey?). In fact, if you calculate the whole process from digging to the actual fission, fission reactors boost about 30% of the CO2 in the air compared to a natural gas fueled electricity plant. This is dependant on how rich the grounds are of said uranium. The 30% figure is based on "rich layers" where you get 1 kilo of Uranium for 1000 kilo's of waste rock (0.1%). If the figure goes down to 0.02% the CO2 goes up to 60% of that of a gas plant and with 0.01% a fission reactor is responsible for more CO2 then a conventional gas plant!
I'm now convinced you've simply cut and pasted these points from a Greenpeace website or some other organisation which is anti-nuclear as a point of ideology over anything else.

They love to claim to have made "calculations" without actually showing their working. I'd love to see what assumptions were made in those calculations.

Let's ignore the fact that coal stations require significant volumes of rock and earth to be dug up, and that the fuel itself produces CO2 when consumed, meaning that a coal plant produces more CO2 throughout it's entire working life, because it's more convenient for Green ideologues.

Let's also ignore the fact that coal has a lower energy density, meaning more coal has to be dug out of the ground and shipped to the power plant for the same amount of energy as uranium.
Said numbers come from an internal debate on nuclear energy in the Dutch SP, more specifically from Herman Damveld, SP member who also works on the national (dutch) platform against nuclear energy. So yes, the arguments may be biased, but that being said if you have sources that refute said argumentation I'd be more than willing to look into it.



5. Nuclear energy is expensive. The currently build European Pressurizedwater Reactor (EPR - the "future" of Europes nuclear power stations) in Finland will cost between 4.5 and 4.7 billion euro's. To be cheaper then electricity by conventional stations, the cost should go down to 3.2 billion, at 4.8 billion costs nuclear power would be as expensive as electricity by gas or coals. In contrast planned EPR stations will cost between 5 billion (according to a French power company) and 8.9 billion euro's (according to a report from Standard & Poor).
Building important infrastructure is always expensive, and with typical capitalist mismanagement cost overruns are inevitable. This is not something unique to nuclear power.

Coal stations are cheaper due to economic factors, true, but they are also vastly more polluting, and you can't recycle the fuel.

Why is it that environmentalists love to encourage us to spend more money on greener solutions, yet when it comes to nuclear power, they immediately become stingy gits?
And

Also, if we never make the initial investment in a decent nuclear power grid, it'll never be economical because we won't have the infrastructure in place. In other words, if we start building more nuclear reactors now, it will be cheaper in the future.
According to the raw numbers you are wrong. France, which has a lot of reactors, has first class knowledge and experience with nuclear technology, so you expect them to work cheaper, right? Apparently not. And yes, the EPR is a new reactor type, so you might argue that new technologies always cost more money, but for now the argument stands.

Also, I'm not against investing in new technologies, but I'm unconvinced nuclear technology is a real alternative.



6. Nuclear energy surpresses green energy. The problem with nuclear power stations is that they cannot run on a lower mode. It's running at 100% all the time. This is the reason why France, which has a huge amount of nuclear power stations, exports its electricity very cheaply every night when everyone sleeps and demand is low. This is antagonal to green energy, which is fluctual by definition. We only have one powergrid, if there is no room for fluctuating green energy, then green energy will never be massively adopted.
Oh no, cheap power, we can't be having that! :rolleyes:

Why is it bad to export energy again? What's so great about having energy sources that fluctuate? Especially if one intends to do one's own manufacturing, instead of paying some kid on the other side of the globe 2p a day to do it instead?

Why is it OK to pay through the nose constantly for energy derived solely from renewables, but not OK to pay more for a nuclear power plant that pollutes less than a cheaper coal plant, and if the nuclear energy infrastructure is built up like it has been in France, cheaper in the long run?
Firstly, this argument wasn't about cost. Secondly, fluctuating sources aren't bad. The sun shines at day, so solar panels deliver energy in that period. Windmills work when the wind blows (not too hard or slow though). The logical needed component, as I raised in an earlier post, is how to store energy efficiently. Added to earlier examples, in the Netherlands there is now an experiment running to store energy by having large waterstorages: when there is an abundant energy water gets pumped up from an underground storage to a lake, when energy is short said lake is dained again to underground storage. Put a dynamo inthere and you have yourself a very large battery.

Thirdly, I didn't say exporting energy is bad. My point is that nuclear power stations need to run on full capacity all the time and thusly suppress alternatives that are fluctuating. In this way green energy can never be massively adopted.



7. Building facilities that can safely keep radioactive material for ~100 000 years are obviously extremely expensive due to the long time period. How expensive? There are no official figures and nuclear lobbyists often conveniently "forget" to mention this bit.
"Obviously"? How is it "obviously" extremely expensive? Firstly, the longer the half-life of radioactive waste, the less intensive the radiation given out by said waste. Secondly, waste storage isn't exactly an energy intensive process - there are basically no moving parts that use up energy and wear out, and it's easy to design sealed waste units that don't corrode as soon as you look at them.
There are many variables to be counted in for such a long timeframe. What about earthquakes for example? Constant monitoring will be needed and these costs add up over said 100 000 years.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is indeed true that reusing fuel is reducing the amount of the waste problem with a factor three. More importantly, the dangerous radiation period is being brought back to "just" 5 to 10 thousand years (as opposed to 100 000 in the socalled "open cycle" of not reusing waste). But this still leaves hundreds of generations of our children with the waste of a product we now enjoy.

Meaningless hyperbole. There is no reason why disposal of radioactive waste can't be safer than disposal of say, chemical waste which unlike radioactive waste is dangerous forever.



I didn't know about the prospecting of uranium, could you source that perhaps?I couldn't find it, but I did find THIS (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_Exploration_drives_uranium_resources_up_17_020 6082.html), which states that recent prospecting has driven uranium resources up 17%, which clearly indicates there is plenty more to be found.


And how far away are industrial thorium reactors still? And if already possible, why isn't it used today?As THIS (http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/english/MSR/MSR.html) page details, efforts were made to create reactors running on thorium, which culminated in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment), but in 1976 researched was discontinued due to a lack of funding.

I would imagine that there is little impetus into thorium reactor research due to a number of factors - firstly, fossil fuels are still cheap/subsidised/established enough to be economical inspite of their ecological impact, the relative abundance of uranium, and the poor public image of nuclear technologies, no thanks to groups like Greenpeace, resulting in funding being restricted.


My argument was a logical extension of my earlier about depleting sources of fuel.It doesn't matter if a fuel source is finite, only that there is enough of it to make use of it worthwhile.


Compared to conventional powersources, perhaps. But my point is not to say that nuclear energy is worse than conventional powersources, just that it isn't a "green" solution.Who cares? It is significantly less polluting than it's fossil fuel rivals, and provides a larger and more constant source of energy than renewables.


Said numbers come from an internal debate on nuclear energy in the Dutch SP, more specifically from Herman Damveld, SP member who also works on the national (dutch) platform against nuclear energy. So yes, the arguments may be biased, but that being said if you have sources that refute said argumentation I'd be more than willing to look into it.
Without knowing what numbers and assumptions went into the calculations, I cannot really address it and as an argument it is therefore useless.


According to the raw numbers you are wrong. France, which has a lot of reactors, has first class knowledge and experience with nuclear technology, so you expect them to work cheaper, right? Apparently not. And yes, the EPR is a new reactor type, so you might argue that new technologies always cost more money, but for now the argument stands.The financial problems are associated with the Finnish plant, which has been the subject of delays and cost overruns, something which as far as I'm aware has not afflicted the Flamanville 3 unit in France.


Firstly, this argument wasn't about cost.Then why mention it?


Secondly, fluctuating sources aren't bad. The sun shines at day, so solar panels deliver energy in that period. Windmills work when the wind blows (not too hard or slow though).They aren't bad, but they aren't good either. The ephemeral nature of renewables is what makes them unsuitable for baseload power, unless you invest in massive infrastructure such as a number of Energy Islands (http://orbitalvector.com/Power/Energy%20Islands/ENERGY%20ISLANDS.htm) or Desert Solar farms.

Why is baseload power important? Because modern industrial societies require power 24/7/365, in all weather conditions and in large amounts.

This is even more important in the hypothetical case of post-capitalist societies, which would not be able to rely on cheap foreign labour (which is often powered by environmentally unsound sources) for their manufactured goods.


The logical needed component, as I raised in an earlier post, is how to store energy efficiently. Added to earlier examples, in the Netherlands there is now an experiment running to store energy by having large waterstorages: when there is an abundant energy water gets pumped up from an underground storage to a lake, when energy is short said lake is dained again to underground storage. Put a dynamo inthere and you have yourself a very large battery.But energy has to be produced in the first place in order for it to be stored in battery form. A nuclear power plant would be able to fill up a lot more storage lakes during off-peak times (and probably do it faster as well), and such a setup would be able to cope with larger spikes in usage.


Thirdly, I didn't say exporting energy is bad. My point is that nuclear power stations need to run on full capacity all the time and thusly suppress alternatives that are fluctuating. In this way green energy can never be massively adopted.This puts value on "green" power simply for the fact that it is "green" power. Why?


There are many variables to be counted in for such a long timeframe. What about earthquakes for example? Constant monitoring will be needed and these costs add up over said 100 000 years.What about earthquakes? They have plenty of them in Japan, but that hasn't prevented them from using nuclear power.

And if the argument isn't about cost like you mentioned earlier, why are you bringing it up yet again?

[Q]

In other news: Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html).

Interesting read.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Personally i started as an ecologist before I bedame Communist, so yes, the two are very compatible.

[Dimentio]

The worst component of "environmentalism" as an ideology is the false notion that animals should be entitled to rights, and it is unfortunate that many who see themselves as leftists have also accepted this notion, such that if anyone on the left actually contests this notion then they are instantly portrayed as "cruel" and "oppressive", as if humans have some kind of moral duty to protect the welfare of beings who are not even part of the same species as us. The only criterion that we should use to determine how we behave towards animals is whether the impact on our own species will be positive - and in light of this criterion, socialism should allow for animals to be used as test subjects without any of the current restrictions which limit the ability of the scientific community to pursue medical advances.

That is actually very frustrating. I live in a "liberal" university city, and here, 80% of the leftist community are composed of people who think that leftism equates animal liberationism. It is insane.

[Cult of Reason]

They already use thorium reactors routinely in India, IIRC.

With regards to nuclear vs. renewables, NoXion is wrong to say that all renewables fluctuate in a way that is difficult to manage. There are two that contradict what he said: geothermal, which does not produce nearly enough electricity for the world, and concentrating solar thermal power in deserts, which does have the potential to provide for the whole world.

In the UK, the average total energy consumption is about 125 kWh per person per day. In order to provide that at 15 W/m^2, which is the average for concentrating solar thermal, an area equivalent to a 1000 km by 1000 km square on the Sahara would be necessary to provide the entire world with UK levels of consumption. What is more, due to the nature of the energy extraction system, which uses heat engines, there is a simple way to store energy: store it in heat reservoirs before conversion to electricity. Molten salt reservoirs can keep their heat in satisfactorily for over a week, and take about 7 hours to drain. Several at once can provide for most lulls in sunlight, especially in the Sahara, the sunniest place on Earth! As such, CST could provide the base load for an electricity grid. It is only really feasible in deserts, though.

There is one problem with CST, however. Due to the fact that each m^2 of mirror with the most common current designs requires 25 kg of steel (this will probably come down a little with time, though), CST needs 15 times as much steel in its construction as nuclear power, for the same average electricity production. As such, it would take decades for the worldto build enough CST for all of itself if the iron was used only for that and iron was extracted at current rates.

That it why, it seems to me, it would be sensible to start building CSTand nuclear fission plants simultaneously, the latter to act as a stop-gap as more CST is produced. The CST should be built to replace the nuclear as it is eventually decommissioned. It might be possible to power the whole world with CST in, say, 50 years, if it is started now, in all the major hot deserts on Earth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They already use thorium reactors routinely in India, IIRC.

If that's true, then standardisation and increased flexibility of designs can only help matters.


With regards to nuclear vs. renewables, NoXion is wrong to say that all renewables fluctuate in a way that is difficult to manage. There are two that contradict what he said: geothermal, which does not produce nearly enough electricity for the world, and concentrating solar thermal power in deserts, which does have the potential to provide for the whole world.That's why I said " ...The ephemeral nature of renewables is what makes them unsuitable for baseload power, unless you invest in massive infrastructure such as a number of Energy Islands (http://orbitalvector.com/Power/Energy%20Islands/ENERGY%20ISLANDS.htm) or Desert Solar farms... "

I had in mind the sort of thing you were proposing - apologies if my terminology wasn't clear enough.


In other news: Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html).

Interesting read.

Indeed. It seems that if any non-renewable is to be used, it should be nuclear:


"Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy,"Plus since nuclear power doesn't need carbon capture technology, it doesn't end up producing more CO2.

However...


Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.
"Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it's straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do," Jacobson said. "The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide." Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.
This is unfair. I bet he doesn't calculate how many people would die as a result of weapons manufactured with "green" energy, so why do it with nuclear?

Quite apart from the fact that if a country wants nukes, they'll try their damndest to get their hands on them in any case.


Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson's study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively "dirty" electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

But you need to build more renewable sources in order to get the same amount of energy as one would from one nuclear power station.
How many more? Curiously enough, the article doesn't say:


Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.
Quite apart from the fact that running a vehicle fleet off wind turbines is terribly inefficient compared to say, running a decent electrified rail network off wind turbines, the vehicle fleet as described here would use 365,000 to 720,000 MWh, while the US in 2005 used 29,000TWh.

Unless I've seriously fluffed my figures, that's rather a lot more energy needed.

I agree however that biofuels and "clean" coal are a massive waste of time, resources and energy.

[Floyce White]

Noxion: "Unleash the atom!"

They did. Over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Noxion: "This is unfair. I bet he doesn't calculate how many people would die as a result of weapons manufactured with 'green' energy, so why do it with nuclear?"

The world trembles in fear as "breeder windmills" spawn deadly ceiling fans.

[paolo22]

I've added a video called "the story of stuff" on the main page of Green-Revolutionary, this should make it more clear as to how the "WORKING CLASS" SHOULD BE ALLOT MORE CONCERNED AT THIS POINT.

I'm starting to think this forum as well is infested with bourgeoisie parasite agents, they try to polarize a community but stay very hidden and cautious about it. This is serious times people. Things are about to change and they're scared.

[Floyce White]

paolo22, you should edit out that last paragraph. It's called "agent baiting" and is an infamous tactic used to break up workers' organization.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion: "Unleash the atom!"

They did. Over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What's your point? They dropped thousands of bombs on civilians in Dresden, but that doesn't mean explosives don't have important civilian applications.


Noxion: "This is unfair. I bet he doesn't calculate how many people would die as a result of weapons manufactured with 'green' energy, so why do it with nuclear?"

The world trembles in fear as "breeder windmills" spawn deadly ceiling fans.Windmills require electronic circuits. If you can make windmills, you can make guided weapons.

Heck, any kind of electricity generation could be used to power arms factories, so I guess we had better ban electricity hadn't we? :rolleyes:


I'm starting to think this forum as well is infested with bourgeoisie parasite agents, they try to polarize a community but stay very hidden and cautious about it. This is serious times people. Things are about to change and they're scared.

You might want to see a doctor about that paranoia.

[Angry Young Man]

How much is too much? How is "need" defined?


The demand for electricity in the UK is, I believe, 40-50mW/day, which is rather alot more than is necessary to live by in terms of domestic use.

I think a good plan would be to issue ration cards to every home, giving each an allowance with extra given to the elderly or disabled.
I think the same with food.

Also the advantage the left has with green politics is that, with publicly owned energy producers, more research can be funded into practical green energy. My dad works on the national grid, and I get the impression that donation is a major problem with a privately owned grid.

[Vanguard1917]

I think a good plan would be to issue ration cards to every home, giving each an allowance with extra given to the elderly or disabled.
I think the same with food.



Hence the essentially anti-working class, unashamedly reactionary nature of environmentalism.

Who needs the bosses to force us to tighten our belts, when you have environmentalists doing it and passing it off as 'radicalism'?

[Angry Young Man]

I was actually referring to the fact that agriculture could so grossly over-produce.

And is it innately reactionary to say that the planet should be kept habitable?

[Vanguard1917]

I was actually referring to the fact that agriculture could so grossly over-produce.

What would be the effect, and more to the point the purpose, of the government introducing rationing on household electricity use and food consumption? By calling for rationing on electricity and food, your intention is to surely to see a reduction in consumption of those products by the public?



And is it innately reactionary to say that the planet should be kept habitable?


What does that mean?

Is it OK to reduce working class living standards if its justified using environmentalist language?

[Angry Young Man]

How is it reducing living standards when there's the bare essentials for a high standard of living? It's not exactly a wartime ration that I'm talking about; it's rations based upon nutritionists' advice whereby everyone could get the right amount of all food groups.

[Floyce White]

Noxion, my point is that breeder reactors ARE weapons factories.

[Vanguard1917]

How is it reducing living standards when there's the bare essentials for a high standard of living? It's not exactly a wartime ration that I'm talking about; it's rations based upon nutritionists' advice whereby everyone could get the right amount of all food groups.

Why should nutritionists have the power to decide what people are allowed to eat? Who will decide how much electricity people should be allowed to consume?

Shouldn't socialists be in the business of opposing belt-tightening policies rather than advocating them?

[Angry Young Man]

Because they approach the matter scientifically. And it's not what people eat in terms of ingredients, it's to make sure that all the foodgroups are there in a ration. Also, did I say that indulgences would be banned? No, becuase I adore chocolate hobnobs.
And socialists should be in the business of advocating the best interests of society, such as health and pollution.

[FreeFocus]

If I didn't think everyone was in danger from global climate change and environmental degradation, I'd raise no objections so that all of the dumbasses opposed to protecting the environment and having a decent respect for preserving nature would feel the full and relentless wrath of their decision. Nonetheless, if the working class opposed environmentalism, who would global climate change hurt the most if not them? It will hit the poorest the hardest. Unfortunately, most of these poor workers will be in the most exploited countries, not in imperialist countries where the "workers" can sit around and talk about privilege, excess, and indulgences. Imperialist countries have contributed the most to global climate change, but won't bare the brunt of its effects. So perhaps what we have here is a labor aristocracy versus the exploited of the world. Workers in the Third World don't consider controlling their resources such as water and food "belt tightening," it's called food sovereignty and independence. When Bolivians and Indians have water sucked out of their communities by foreign multinationals, where does it go to get bottled? To the US, so the fetishisized and perhaps imagined US "working class" can live more "comfortably" with a "looser belt."

There are green strains within communism, but statist communism never appears particularly green, save for a few examples. The greenest strains are of the libertarian variety.

[Vanguard1917]

Because they approach the matter scientifically. And it's not what people eat in terms of ingredients, it's to make sure that all the foodgroups are there in a ration. Also, did I say that indulgences would be banned? No, becuase I adore chocolate hobnobs.

Then why can't nutritionists simply give advice? Why do you need rationing to dictate what the working class can consume?

The only answer i can think of: you wish to reduce working class consumption.



And socialists should be in the business of advocating the best interests of society, such as health and pollution


No, socialists are not in the business of using justifications like 'health' and 'pollution' to enforce austerity measures on to the working class.

[Angry Young Man]

Why are you so simply thinking in austerity? Is it austere to get all the nutrients you need? Trying to stop overproduction here.

[Vanguard1917]

Why are you so simply thinking in austerity?

That's what you're advocating -- enforced limits on working class consumption.


Is it austere to get all the nutrients you need?

Why would you need rationing to have access to all the nutrients you need?



Trying to stop overproduction here.


Overproduction of goods in capitalist society is caused by people not being able to afford products -- i.e. underconsumption. It's not caused by people being able to afford too much (i.e. overconsumption), as you're trying to claim.

See: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/v.htm#overproduction

[Angry Young Man]

Austerity, I always thought, was close to famine. The restrictions would be to stop problems like obesity.

And, in your view, is health not an important matter?

[Vanguard1917]

Austerity, I always thought, was close to famine.

No, asuterity measures are those which force the public to consume less.



The restrictions would be to stop problems like obesity.


Yes, by making people poorer and dictating their consumption.



And, in your view, is health not an important matter?


What are you talking about?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion, my point is that breeder reactors ARE weapons factories.

Wrong. Breeder reactors create additional fuel through via neutron irradiation of fertile material. This fuel is not limited to use in nuclear weapons, just like a chemical factory is not limited to making explosives for bombs.

You are applying a moralistic double standard to nuclear technologies. In light of the fact that many more people have been killed by weapons made with conventional technologies, this is astounding hypocrisy.

[Kibbutznik]

Hence the essentially anti-working class, unashamedly reactionary nature of environmentalism.

Who needs the bosses to force us to tighten our belts, when you have environmentalists doing it and passing it off as 'radicalism'?

Careful, comrade, you're constructing a false dichotomy here. Not all greens are vulgar "environmentalists". As an adherant to the philosophy of social ecology, I think it is very important to distinguish vulgar, reformist liberal environmentalism with radical, anti-capitalist social ecology.

I agree, some currents of the green movement can come off as being misanthropic. But confronting them in such a manner is not the way to get them to change their minds. Their views on ecology are just as wrongheaded as their views on humanism.

I think that the fusion of radical ecology and socialism is probably the most important advance made to radical theory since Marx wrote Das Kapital. The key to a sustainable, post-scarcity future is found in the marriage of a decentralised, planned socialist economy to a radical understanding of ecology. In short, man's mastery over nature cannot be what we seek. A green communist future will be found through harmonizing our social functions with the natural functions of the biosphere.

Humanity is not separate from nature, and capitalism's attempt to precisely accomplish this separation will bring only ruin. In our quest for sustainablility, we may have to give up a few luxuries on the way, but those will primarily be the luxuries that the ordinary worker will never share in. But an economy that fails to provide for all human social needs is not a green one.

[paolo22]

Actually, working class living would NOT BE reduced. It would be greatly extended due to the fact that workload would be reduced.

The fact that people are coming on here saying that workers would have to work MORE or live LESS under green ideas is absurd. They are merely defending consumerism. I'm not paranoid as "NoXion" has mentioned, I merely see the faces of those on this board defending consumerism.

Consumerism is based on planned obsolescence, under a social structure this would be abolished. Workers do not want to create things that are planned to break down. This means less strain on workers and and more time for progressive projects.

Anyone here who denies the fact that workers in todays consumerist world are caught in a cycle of creation and destruction are obviously here to divide the community. The working class has been turned into a farm, they (elite classes) are farming us for profits and we are creating garbage while we're at it.

Green means to create technology and resources at a rate that is compatible with out surroundings. Consumerism means to use the working class simply for their work, they take a portion out of our work and use it to their advantage, while what we make is useless and un-practical.

I warn you all of the demonic entity present on these boards.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The fact that people are coming on here saying that workers would have to work MORE or live LESS under green ideas is absurd. They are merely defending consumerism. I'm not paranoid as "NoXion" has mentioned, I merely see the faces of those on this board defending consumerism.

It's one thing to defend consumerism, but it's quite another to accuse those doing so of being "bourgeouisie parasite agents".

In fact, I would say that sort of name-calling is more damaging, as it erodes trust.


I warn you all of the demonic entity present on these boards.

Theological language is unhelpful. I don't see how you can compare incorrect but sincerely held positions to demonic possession.

[Floyce White]

Floyce White: "...breeder reactors ARE weapons factories."

Noxion: "Wrong. . . . This fuel is not limited to use in nuclear weapons..."

You should have noticed that my statement was not exclusive of breeder reactors also being used to produce fuel. Similarly, your phrase "is not limited to" was also inclusive not exclusive. If breeder reactors do produce material that "is not limited to use in nuclear weapons," then the product has use in nuclear weapons. As expressed in your own assertion, and as implied by your own parallel construction, my point was correct.

Now don't you think that was silly, denying something that you intended to turn right around and affirm?

There's no natural source of any useable quantity of plutonium. It's made in breeder reactors. Purified uranium contains virtually none of the weapons-grade isotope. Useable quantities are obtained by enriching susceptible material in breeder reactors before separation. Almost all of the separation end product is worthless for atom bombs. Before or after the breeder process, this bulk is radioactive enough to use in electric power generation. So it is an extremely expensive and completely unnecessary step to enrich and separate out the tiny amount of bomb isotopes just to use the remainder as power plant fuel. The unique purpose of breeder reactors is to make bomb material.

As I said, breeder reactors are weapons factories.

Noxion: "You are applying a moralistic double standard . . . . this is astounding hypocrisy."

President Bush has a moralistic double standard by promoting US weapons of mass destruction, while opposing other countries' possession of such weapons. President Bush has astounding hypocrisy by pleading for peace while sending troops to war.

As a moderator, you should recognize that members are not to be treated as outright enemies. While I appreciate that these discussions are informal and off-the-cuff, don't you think it's excessive to accuse me of dishonesty with the same terms that you'd use to describe Bush?

As you said, treat them as "incorrect but sincerely held positions."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Floyce White: "...breeder reactors ARE weapons factories."

Noxion: "Wrong. . . . This fuel is not limited to use in nuclear weapons..."

You should have noticed that my statement was not exclusive of breeder reactors also being used to produce fuel. Similarly, your phrase "is not limited to" was also inclusive not exclusive. If breeder reactors do produce material that "is not limited to use in nuclear weapons," then the product has use in nuclear weapons. As expressed in your own assertion, and as implied by your own parallel construction, my point was correct.

Now don't you think that was silly, denying something that you intended to turn right around and affirm?

That depends on what they're primarily used for, doesn't it? I personally think fuel production is a better use for breeder reactors than nuclear weapons. But to exclude their use for fuel because of the possibility of being able to produce nuclear weapons is silly. Should we stop using chlorine as a disinfectant because it can be used as a chemical weapon?

There is also the matter of the use to which such weapons are put. A massacre of civilians is a horrific crime against humanity whether it was achieved through bullets or nukes. It doesn't require a great deal of technological knowledge or monetary resources to acquire firearms, they are considerably easier to get hold of and they are used with considerable frequency. Yet I hear no calls to ban metallurgy or lathes.

We've had nukes for a good few decades now, and despite a few close calls, people kept their heads on and didn't end up wrecking civilisation.


There's no natural source of any useable quantity of plutonium. It's made in breeder reactors. Purified uranium contains virtually none of the weapons-grade isotope. Useable quantities are obtained by enriching susceptible material in breeder reactors before separation. Almost all of the separation end product is worthless for atom bombs. Before or after the breeder process, this bulk is radioactive enough to use in electric power generation. So it is an extremely expensive and completely unnecessary step to enrich and separate out the tiny amount of bomb isotopes just to use the remainder as power plant fuel. The unique purpose of breeder reactors is to make bomb material.

As I said, breeder reactors are weapons factories.

Wrong. The material placed in breeder reactors (typically Uranium-238 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238) and Thorium-232 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-232)) is fertile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_material) but not fissile (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile). Breeders produce more fissile fuel than what you put in, via a process known as neutron capture.

[paolo22]

Obviously there are many Energy, and other resource options that capitalism hinders from us. Only profitable resources and methods are used. Communism would support PRACTICAL and LOGICAL use of resources and methods.

This must not be manipulated to look like "sacrifice", nothing would be sacrificed but the overwhelming waste and toxicity resulting from shortcuts and "picking the lowest fruits" as seen in capitalism.

NO TRUE communist could state otherwise.

[duffers]

The worst component of "environmentalism" as an ideology is the false notion that animals should be entitled to rights, and it is unfortunate that many who see themselves as leftists have also accepted this notion, such that if anyone on the left actually contests this notion then they are instantly portrayed as "cruel" and "oppressive", as if humans have some kind of moral duty to protect the welfare of beings who are not even part of the same species as us. The only criterion that we should use to determine how we behave towards animals is whether the impact on our own species will be positive - and in light of this criterion, socialism should allow for animals to be used as test subjects without any of the current restrictions which limit the ability of the scientific community to pursue medical advances.

Bob, why on earth are you a socialist? You think your own species is valuable enough to take into consideration, but not animals? The blatant disregard for them is rife in capitalism, I would have thought you were right at home. Ironically, humans yet again propagating for such a viewpoint that puts them on a somewhat similar basis as animals. Why shouldn't we test on a cretin like yourself? You don't seem very human to me.