Why are green politicians opposed to clean nuclear energy?

[Brezel]

So there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.

This seems like an odd / egotistical / pessimistic point of view to take.

I find it odd as well but apparently the extremely long period nuclear waste remains harmful makes it real. Here is a short article http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2009/11/atomic_priesthoods_thorn_landscapes_and_munchian_pictograms.html

[CountDeMoney]

-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents

and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry

Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.

In America, there was substantial popular culture blowback during the mid-to-late 70's and 80's:  Barks touches on some of it, but in a span of 4 years, you had major motion pictures (China Syndrome, 1979 and Silkwood, 1983) where Hollywood really put the zap on the nuclear industry as unsafe an treacherous Three Mile Island time.

And yes, there was a definite kneejerk reaction from the peaceniks (who equated containment towers = mushroom clouds) over the nuclear armaments industry, especially when Reagan and Thatcher upped the ante with forward deployment of Pershings to Europe and the Soviets cockblocked the INF discussions. 

And no, Chernobyl sure as shit didn't help.

But the late '70s and early '80s did not do nuclear power in the US any favors.

[Syt]

That China Syndrome hit the movie screens a mere 12 days before Three Mile Island is one of those odd quirky conincidences.

[Martinus]

-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents

and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry

Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.

Tell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.

Actually, we (Poland) are building one.

[CountDeMoney]

What people too often forget about Fukushima is that there were four reactors there and those four were subject to the fourth strongest earthquake since the invention of the richter scale and two crashed and two shut down safely. The ones that crashed were the older obsolete kind and they crashed because the local electricity grid and road system failed. They ran out of diesel for the generator after the electric grid went down. The two modern reactors (1970s designs) worked and shut down perfectly safely.

Fukashima's back up generators failed because they were in the sub-basement of the plant and were subsequently flooded by the tsunami.  That's why all the engineers ran out to their cars, and daisy-chained all their car batteries together just to get enough juice to the control room panels in time to see the bad news about the steam build-up.

But yeah, we're not at that point in human civilization where we can out-engineer Mother Nature.  A 1-in-500-years eathquake/tsunami combo?  That's just a bad day at the craps table for humanity.

You guys want to see some real hard-core footage of the crisis, watch the Frontline piece from last month;  first time showing the Japanese crews' camcorder footage during the first few days of the crisis:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/japans-nuclear-meltdown/

[Martinus]

You know when I read stuff like that, I'm kinda feeling proud to be a Pole for the first time, perhaps, ever. Compared to the pussified Western Europe, and the dysfunctional idiocy of countries like Hungary or Ukraine, we are surprisingly (for a nation stereotypically considered to be full of hotheaded and irrational romantics) level-headed, in a 19th century Britain style. We are growing our economy, building nuclear plant(s) and infrastructure, engaging in some moderate regional diplomacy that is neither too ambitious nor too timid, raising retirement age and keeping the public debt from ballooning, all the while keeping democracy and human rights in a fairly good shape, or even seeing a moderate progress.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?

Contraception.

the only way to effectively bring down population numbers is lifting people out of poverty. And doing that requires massive amounts of energy.
Green politicians will need to accept that it's either lifting the world out of poverty -which will have devastating effect on the environment- or saving the environment -which will let 3/4th of the global population rot in poverty. Neither choice is acceptable for such politicians. Too bad that they oppose technology on an ideological basis.

[Iormlund]

Because they are idiots.

[CountDeMoney]

Green politicians will need to accept that it's either lifting the world out of poverty -which will have devastating effect on the environment- or saving the environment -which will let 3/4th of the global population rot in poverty. Neither choice is acceptable for such politicians. Too bad that they oppose technology on an ideological basis.

Well, at least the American Left has been slowly coming to the realization that nuclear power is a better alternative to fossil fuels.  It's taken awhile, but they're turning.

The biggest obstacle to the expansion of nuclear power in the US is, ironically enough, the energy industry itself.

[Sheilbh]

I think that Greens aren't solely interested in carbon.  So the problems of storage and potential disaster of nuclear power is a problem for them too.  In addition the general Green position isn't that growth should be totally supported.  The goal of Green politics is to see a sort-of global lifestyle switch that consumes less and grows less.  So the worry that we won't be able to sustain this level of consumption without carbon or nuclear isn't necessarily a major concern for them.

I don't know that Western Europe's going mad about nuclear, just Germany.  The French are still building them and, in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.  In both countries there's broad cross-party support for it and the only anti-nuclear movement, that I can think of, is in Green Party itself.  The left is fine with it.

I think for specific reasons Germany's got a very strong anti-nuclear movement and a stronger than average Green movement which affects them.

[CountDeMoney]

The French are still building them and, in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.  In both countries there's broad cross-party support for it and the only anti-nuclear movement, that I can think of, is in Green Party itself.  The left is fine with it.

The French, hands down, have the best nuclear program in the world, and the best way to approach the industry, from training personnel from a paramilitary academy, to universal and cutting-edge reactor design.  Even the Japanese have had issues before Fukashima, between engineering fuck-ups, and even corruption and investigations at the highest levels, that the French have never had.

Yet one more reason why the French rock.

I think for specific reasons Germany's got a very strong anti-nuclear movement and a stronger than average Green movement which affects them.

I expect nothing less from the Germans.  Those people never do anything in moderation.

[The Brain]

Opposing nuclear power has become an important tribal identifying mark among greens.

[Tamas]

I think that Greens aren't solely interested in carbon.  So the problems of storage and potential disaster of nuclear power is a problem for them too.  In addition the general Green position isn't that growth should be totally supported.  The goal of Green politics is to see a sort-of global lifestyle switch that consumes less and grows less.  So the worry that we won't be able to sustain this level of consumption without carbon or nuclear isn't necessarily a major concern for them.

And this is where they showcase their selfish ignorance, as a movement / political ideology. I understand that with papa and mama funding their college education and Starbucks hangouts, a slight lifestyle cut-back seems acceptable. I mean, you don't have to drink caffe latte every day, right?
But for the vast majority of the world's population, the poorest-of-the-poor-with-a-roof-over-his-head western europe lifestyle is a dream and ambition.
Telling them "okay dudes, listen up, we are where we want to be. We must choose between further technological and industrial advances, or letting the lot of you starve and eventually die in horrible wars of survival. We go with the latter" is, well, not nice

[Sheilbh]

Actually their point is that the West is the trust fund kid of the world.  We need to take a severe lifestyle cut, or make our lifestyle significantly more sustainable/less based on consumption, for the rest of the world to develop - though they should learn from Western mistakes and develop sustainably.  They don't believe in the West continuing our lifestyle.

I mean I posted a while ago about that former McKinsley consultant who's now a Green activist and councillor.  He did research that indicated that actually consumption had dropped in recent years, I think even if you account for the outsourcing of production and the carbon cost.  The idea that you can have growth and some form of increased sustainability is pretty revolutionary in Green circles.

[CountDeMoney]

Actually their point is that the West is the trust fund kid of the world.  We need to take a severe lifestyle cut, or make our lifestyle significantly more sustainable/less based on consumption, for the rest of the world to develop - though they should learn from Western mistakes and develop sustainably.  They don't believe in the West continuing our lifestyle.

And they don't believe in equilibrium, either.  That's why global initiatives on environmentalism will never work;  It's a Western construct.  China, India and Russia, in addition to the entire continents of Africa and South America, have no aversion to raping the planet for all it's worth.