Green Conservatism -- Newt Gingrich

If the U.S. had developed Nuclear power at the same rate France has, we would today put 2,200,000,000 tons less carbon into the atmosphere--beating kyoto requirements by 15%. See AmericanSolutions.com for more.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• newt
• gingrich
• conservative
• environment
• al
• gore
• global
• warming
• nuclear
• power
• coal
• carbon
• kyoto
• green
• china
• syndrome

[ivanbunny25]

Why not throw our money and priority behind far safer and renewable power sources like solar and wind? Nuclear is dangerous and the question remains, what do we do with the waste and what is the impact if it leaks? Chernobyl taught us how devastating it could be. If we lost a city we'd never recover from such an accident. We know alot about nuclear technology, but there is far more we don't know. We could be doing safer and more inovative projects like the ITER fusion reactor that burns clean.

[xues1984]

Funny, I thought Chernobyl taught us not to let Soviets from the 80s run reactors. France uses nuclear heavily, and yet, no meltdowns. Apparently we've made advances in safety in the past 20 years. Go figure.

To listen to you, Columbia taught us not to go into space, 911 taught us not to build skyscrapers, The Great Chicago Fire taught us not to build cities, and interstate pile-ups teach us cars are bad.

I'm for not returning to the stone ages. Problems beg for solutions, not quitting.

[indegruv]

@xues1984 What has Fukushima taught you, FOOL? Shut your fucking mouth. 

[jakesteel1]

Clean, limitless energy: solar, wind, tidal, geothermal.

.

Why do these maniacs insist on dangerous, melt down prone, toxic nuclear waste producing energy?

.

Follow the money trail.

[YNot1989]

@cybold2 Nuclear is safest only in terms of how many accidents have actually happened; and while only a great fool would deny that when a meltdown does occur the destruction is downright biblical, from an engineering perspective I'm not wrong. As for your claim that renewables are the only real choice, that is (for the moment) factually inaccurate; most renewable sources of energy all hit the same wall: The storage and transportation of renewable energy is currently way behind fossil fuels.

[cybold2]

@YNot1989 Safe? Over 1 million died as a result of Chernobyl. The situation in Japan may be worse. Thousands of square miles are now condemned basically forever, and neither of these were the worst case scenario. A complete meltdown could ruin the groundwater for an entire country and the death toll could be tens of millions. Coal fired plants create far less death and destruction, but they cause climate change. Renewable is the only real choice. Nukes are the most dangerous of all.

[YNot1989]

@cybold2

Well in Newt's defense (and in defense of a lot of other people who support it) nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy production (on a large scale), its just that when it does fail it is easily the most destructive. The truth is that Nuclear is probably our best bet for supplying the country with cheap power until we pull off Room Temperature Superconductors. Personally, I think we should take another look at Throium reactors.

[indegruv]

@snobaldus "logic and reason" that you base on your "feeling of doubt" go fuck yourself you dumb, emotional mother fucker!

[indegruv]

@snobaldus yeah it's a "vast conspiracy" by scientist, you fucking idiot.

[indegruv]

@cybold2 He's just another political no nothing, run his mouth about what some corporate interest told him to say.. and always saying "the Left" as if it is some demonizing tool. The only demons here run with the GOP.

[indegruv]

Republicans are dumb mother fuckers. ALL OF THEM.

[cybold2]

Every other nation on earth is trying to get rid of their nuclear power and replace it with clean and safe alternatives, and Newt wants to turn US into another dead zone like Chernobyl and Japan. What a crackpot!