I appreciate his anger, I think it's justified. We should be angry when people like the anti-nuclear groups make decisions for like they have for "political" or personal financial reasons that have an affect everyone on the planet.
Yes. And he makes the point explicitly and implicitly, but a lot of these supposedly environmental groups were first created to oppose nuclear and then rebranded, but they always just oppose nuclear in the West and not in Russia and China (and they probably get funding from Russia because as a huge oil and gas exporter and adversary, it's in their interest to weaken nuclear power in the West while building more at home).
I may have mentioned this in previous comments. I grew up in a small town on the Ohio river that was ground zero for that activism in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The environmentalist groups, along with a group who were for "preservation" played a role in the shutdown of the Marble Hill Nuclear plant there in 1984. My father, uncles, their friends all worked on the project, so the shutdown had a massive effect on us.
He called them "degrowthers" at one point in the conversation, it's an astute label, for both the environmentalist and the preservationist.
Even today that sentiment still exists. A month ago that county counsel voted against zoning for a large solar farm. The counsel meetings proceeding the vote were full of similar arguments to those made 50 years ago.
The Russia funding theory fits their MO. The weaponization of NGOs by governments (foreign and domestics) and industry appears to have been going on for a long time.
Awesome conversation, looking forward to part 2.
I appreciate his anger, I think it's justified. We should be angry when people like the anti-nuclear groups make decisions for like they have for "political" or personal financial reasons that have an affect everyone on the planet.
Thanks for listening, glad you liked it! 💚 🥃
Yes. And he makes the point explicitly and implicitly, but a lot of these supposedly environmental groups were first created to oppose nuclear and then rebranded, but they always just oppose nuclear in the West and not in Russia and China (and they probably get funding from Russia because as a huge oil and gas exporter and adversary, it's in their interest to weaken nuclear power in the West while building more at home).
I may have mentioned this in previous comments. I grew up in a small town on the Ohio river that was ground zero for that activism in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The environmentalist groups, along with a group who were for "preservation" played a role in the shutdown of the Marble Hill Nuclear plant there in 1984. My father, uncles, their friends all worked on the project, so the shutdown had a massive effect on us.
He called them "degrowthers" at one point in the conversation, it's an astute label, for both the environmentalist and the preservationist.
Even today that sentiment still exists. A month ago that county counsel voted against zoning for a large solar farm. The counsel meetings proceeding the vote were full of similar arguments to those made 50 years ago.
The Russia funding theory fits their MO. The weaponization of NGOs by governments (foreign and domestics) and industry appears to have been going on for a long time.