It's funny how perspectives can be so different. I feel like the GOP has been politely waiting for the DNC to come to terms with the fact that nuclear is really the only path forward to provide clean stable grid power.
Can you point to any source that indicates that the GOP, broadly, is pro-nuclear and anti-CO2 like your comment suggests? I'm skeptical but genuinely open to the possibility of being corrected.
>Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994.
It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phrase "climate change." If we had listened to Republicans back when it was just "clean air" we'd be in a much better position.
No one should have trouble believing that Republicans may be more pro-nuclear - even if you're pro-nuclear and take the most cynical possible view of the GOP, it's a way to produce energy and make money, why wouldn't they be? The anti-nuclear push comes from (yes, overblown) environmental concerns, and those rarely bother the GOP.
But your post above very much makes it sound like the GOP is actively trying to fight climate change through nuclear power, and those darn Dems just won't let them. But since attaining power in 2016 the GOP environmental position looks to have mostly been gutting the EPA, rolling back regulations, and braying about bringing back coal ("clean air" indeed!). From here it looks like the GOP is just utterly indifferent towards climate change or the environment and extremely pro-fossil fuel; any interest in nuclear they might have doesn't appear to have much to do at all with it being a path towards clean energy.
>But your post above very much makes it sound like the GOP is actively trying to fight climate change...
I went out of my way to say that Republicans aren't all that concerned about CO2. So you are just reading something into my comment that isn't there. Honestly it just seems like you're unwilling or unable to see nuance. You couldn't see it in my post and you can't see it in the Republican position of simply having a different idea about how to balance strong economies and environmental concerns, both of which save human lives and improve quality of life. I mean, who do you think is digging up all that coal in Appalachia? Do you think it's a bunch of Democrats getting black lung to keep the power running? Do you really think you have anything to tell them about how dangerous it is?
But at the end of the day, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is that nuclear is the only viable solution for clean grid power and Republicans support it while Democrats don't. If you want to get into the weeds about why they support it or how they're wrong about other issues or even details on this issue, then have at it. I think it's a waste of time personally.
The GOP is interested in nuclear power because they know that since the 60s the Left has been against nuclear power. They bring it up as a way to gore the Left's ox, not as something they're actively pursuing to fight climate change. The policy they pursue is trolling and antagonizing their domestic enemies. Any effect of this on climate policy is incidental.
I thought the GOP position is that there is no evidence for climate change and all scientists working in this area are part of a liberal conspiracy that wants to get research money from the government. And even if there is climate change it’s either not man made or actually beneficial. In addition nothing can be done because that would kill the economy. I thought that’s the position.
It's possible to hate the GOP, question their sanity, doubt their intentions, and yet still save the planet by working with them to implement clean nuclear power.
Been of the same thought myself. I see tons of pro-nuke Republicans waiting for the other side to show up.
Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country.
Can you provide a citation of “tons” of pro-nuke Republicans just waiting for Democrats to show up? Is there a bill they have tried to pass while controlling the Senate for 9 years? Did they write it into their budgets when they controlled all three branches?
The remaining problems are local/social ones. We need the left to tell the Sierra club and their ilk not to sue every potential nuclear plant into oblivion. Hollywood largely owns the culture, we need them to make pro-nuclear media to help alleviate NIMBYism. The environment is not the GOP's issue. They GOP supports nuclear but without it they will happily keep burning coal. Nobody made the claim that nuclear power was a top priority for Republicans, the claim is that Republicans largely support nuclear and are going to keep burning coal while politely waiting for the Democrats to come around to the only real viable clean grid energy solution.
Your quest to make it a left/right issue is belied by the facts. There is no evidence that Democrats are holding these issues back or not willing to sponsor nuclear-related bills. Look at the list of states that run on nuclear, they represent a wide mix of political control, from South Carolina and Mississippi to Illinois and New Jersey. [1]
The billions in loan guarantees in your first link was additional funding for a nuclear reactor approved by the Government in 2012, during a Democratic administration.
The NEICA was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats in the Senate. [2] It passed both houses in a bi-partisan manner.
The "Republican bill NELA" has 11 Republican co-sponsors and 9 Democratic co-sponsors. [3]
This all seems pretty bi-partisan to me, not sure where you got the idea that Republicans are "politely waiting for Democrats to come around." If that were true, they wouldn't be co-sponsoring and voting for the legislation you mentioned.
This poll has been shared a number of times in this thread, so I’ve seen it. I’m not sure how it holds more value than actual legislation sponsored and passed. Again, looking at individual states, there a plenty of Democratic controlled ones with significant nuclear production (Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut). Considering how long it takes to build a nuclear plant, that means they must have supported it for pretty long.
It’s ok to admit that something isn’t R or D. Republicans support oil and coal most, Dems support wind and solar most, both support nuclear. The Gallup analysis itself talks about the cost of other energy sources playing a part in the perception. As solar, natural gas and oil have become cheaper, expensive nuclear plants have become less popular. Your link about the Georgia plant says it is years behind schedule and costs have doubled, maybe Democrats see that as fiscally irresponsible and that’s why they don’t support it as much. Either way, this simple poll can’t answer those questions and actual legislation tells its own story.
You've moved the goalposts several times now. The only claim I started with is that Republicans, as a group, have supported nuclear for some time while Democrats, as a group, haven't. You then asked me to provide some evidence of specific actions Republicans took, which I provided recent example. Then you complained that some Democrats also supported the thing Republicans did. So I showed data on the general support by party. But now that's not good enough either.
Also, legislation isn't the only part of the story, so are lawsuits. Do you think environmentalist groups like the Sierra club who have a history of burying efforts to build plants in lawsuits are more closely associated with Democrats or Republicans?
You said Republicans have supported it and patiently waited for Democrats to catch up. I showed that each of your examples included a group of Democrats supporting (co-sponsoring) it. I also showed how multiple Democratic controlled states also support nuclear. A qualitative poll doesn’t disprove the quantitative evidence that Democrats have and continue to support nuclear as an energy option. There is also a vocal group of Democrats who don’t support it in any way, but that doesn’t change the votes and actions of those that do.
Trying to boil everything down to a yes/no or left/right issue leads to this type of back and forth. Issues have many sides and multiple nuances, it’s ok to admit that.
Sorry, but you are still taking an extremely narrow interpretation of what I wrote and then asking me to defend the thing that you made up in your mind. Finding some Democrats that support nuclear doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. Moving the discussion between layers of abstraction from generalizations to individuals and back is a disingenuous way to debate. The only thing I needed to support my position is the survey of support showing that the majority of Republicans support nuclear while the majority of Democrats don't, and that this state of affairs has held consistently over time.
I think we need to convince everyone to watch the Bill Gates documentary on Netflix. It's a not-so-subtle pitch to save the world with a gen 4 nuclear power plant that uses all that old nuclear waste as its fuel. So it's clean nuclear energy which is designed to be impossible to melt down and it literally eats the pollution from previous generation nuclear plants.
The Republicans have been in support of nuclear power since before you ever even heard of "climate change." Back then we just called it "clean air." Are you interested in saving the planet, or are you interested in shaming Republicans?
Here's my real nuanced position. Republican's ability to make this happen is somewhat limited. They can fund research, they can work on environmental regulations that stifle nuclear power, they can subsidize the industry with loan guarantees, and they can work with other countries to promote nuclear power globally. They're doing all that. The remaining hurdles are largely social ones, and the liberals largely own the culture. We need Hollywood to make pro-nuclear media. We need movie stars to support it in their dumb speeches at awards ceremonies. This will help stave off some of the NIMBYism. We need the left to tell the Sierra Club and their ilk to stuff it and not sue every attempt to build a nuclear power plant into oblivion... those groups aren't going to listen to Republicans.
It's totally true that the environment is not as high of a priority for Republicans as it is for Democrats. The GOP supports nuclear, but they're not going make it their top priority. As long as the Democrats continue to block it, as long as liberal groups make it tacitly impossible to even break ground on a nuclear plant, the GOP will just keep on happily burning coal. It's fine to think whatever you want about Republicans. I probably won't even disagree with you on most of your opinions. But this is a super easy major win for the environment that is being left on the table because the Democrats aren't willing to play ball.
