Green leader in England and Wales calls ‘debates about words’ unhelpful and denies recent motion was controversial

I broadly agree with Zack Polanski here. I’m glad he’s taken a stance.

I’m not sure about “no state has the right to exist”, but whatever.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
    38·
    6 hours ago

    Why does he always do this.

    I agree with what he says up to a point, but then he always says something else and I’m like, no I don’t agree with that bit, that bit is stupid.

    It’s like every time.

    It just seems to be the green parties MO, it’s like the stupid argument around nuclear power stations, with the green saying you can power everything with renewables, no you can’t, of course you can’t, stop saying that, it gives ammunition to the opposition when you say stupid things like that.

    • rmuk@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      23 minutes ago

      I agree with what he says up to a point, but then he always says something else and I’m like, no I don’t agree with that bit, that bit is stupid.

      Well, if your comment isn’t a self-illustrative example of this I’m not sure what is.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        42·
        5 hours ago

        It’s not about what can’t be powered by renewables it’s that everything can’t be powered by renewables all of the time.

        The big advantage of nuclear power is that it works 24/7, it doesn’t produce pollution, it’s wasted by product is something that can be dealt with and doesn’t have any environmental impacts, and it’s well understood technology that has worked for nearly 100 years now and we’ll still be reliable into the future. It gives us a nice stable based work from.

        People are so scared of nuclear power because they don’t understand it, and so the Greens have taken the stands that there against it too. Not only does that risk our energy security but it’s pandering to ignorance something no party should be doing let of all the greens that are supposed to be progressive.

        • keylemmypie@reddthat.comEnglish
          3·
          40 minutes ago

          Batteries have sorted that. We just haven’t installed enough yet. The combination of renewables and batteries is better than nuclear by every metric.

        • killingspark@feddit.orgEnglish
          51·
          4 hours ago

          it doesn’t produce pollution, it’s wasted by product is something that can be dealt with and doesn’t have any environmental impacts,

          Germany would like a word about that. We do not know how to deal with the waste, we don’t even know how to properly store it until we figure out what to do with it.

          Also: obviously mining uranium comes with a lot of pollution with massive environmental impact.

        • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          That’s fair enough, my only reservation with nuclear is how much runway it needs for rollout, I know some firms have wanted to standardise with a basic unit of nuclear power sort of thing, but that’s also taking a long time. I’ve also seen promising work done in cheap grid storage, so for my money that’s going to be a better “decarbonise immediately, if not sooner” solution.

          But nuclear is fine too imo, long-term. Didn’t the greens evolve slightly on that too? I think I heard they’re just going to treat it as another option to weigh on the merits, which is probably their way of saying “we’re not NIMBYs, but it doesn’t beat wind and solar”.