====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Well, once you move to the "left" and away from actual science, I have to admit, it certainly gets more interesting. Of course few of the groups mentioned (and none that i actually know of) have done an indept analysis of energy alternatives to fossil. Certainly a group like the IMT (Woods) has done an *indept* analysis of climate change denial (the most extensive one I've ever seen by any left group (last year in a 5 part series). They've done ZERO on energy alternatives, however, and show a centrigugally impressionist POV with regards to this when put to the question. Socialist Action has also done something similiar. But yes, the in the *western* left, the list Lou derives his understanding of the "left" comes from, most groups do have a anti-nuclear perspective even if it is mostly derived from historical momentum from the 1970s and cemented in place by a sympathy for various "Green economic" agendas from various NGOs. I would argue that a large number of Western left groups have taken *no* position on this question at all. So, on the left I can count Hugo Chavez, and be extension, the ruling PSUV, who are seeking to build a nuclear infrastructure with help from Russia. I think they get that their"carbon communism' in Venezuela is having something of a detrimental effect on the climate, even if it's a relatively small one. I suspect it's not even up for discussion in that no one is really 'debating' the question for now. Their over reliance on hydro energy is subject to the very same climatic changes we are all seeing and has caused power shortages there: they burn a lot of gas and oil as well to make up for shortfalls...thus their wanting to use advanced nuclear energy as a way of mitigating it. Excellent. The left in the developing world is a lot less knee-jerk than the Western left is, understanding that energy is necessary for development, especially one that is carbon-free/low-carbon in effects. Nevertheless there is a real lack of scientific inquery on the left generally. On the Right, groups like the Charles Koch and the libertarian right wing CATO Institute oppose nuclear energy. There are probably a lot more. None of this btw, is at all relevant to the use of nuclear energy or any solution to both the energy crisis and the climate crisis. Every fossil company in the U.S. has touted "climate change" now, in an attempt to co-opt "Green sentiment". Does this make Cheveron touting wind mills and BP "supporting" solar make either of these 'wrong solutions'? Of course not (please note that not ONE of these companies supports nuclear and infact doesn't want to talk about it...at all). Yet I don't try to associated support for wind or solar with these right wing Fortune 500 companies. Science is not a question of popularity, it's a question of facts. That the left in the west has jumped on the "Renewable" bandwagon is hardly an endorsement of any solution based on science. In fact, while I abhor the Deniers in the debate around climate, I don't associate any solution based on what groups support which solution, but rather which one offers the most *effective* one. Like some other issues, as well, its a shame that the "right" has often a better understanding of both science and politics than what passes for the "The Left". Louis included. David ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
