this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2162 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2649 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like every other piece of infrastructure. Are you actually advocating that people should just be able to build power plants wherever they want?

[–] brianorca@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying the opposition to nuclear plants is uniquely strident. It's almost easier to get a new coal plant built. And it shouldn't be.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay sure, I can see how that would plausibly be true, even if I haven't bothered to check it genuinely is.

But why were "environmental impact reports" lumped in with your criticism of the process?

Usually the only people throwing tantrums over those are property developers upset they can't bulldoze forests full of endangered species or heritage buildings and replace them with high density housing.

[–] brianorca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

An EIR covers the effects to the human environment as well as the wild. So the effect to land value and perceived fear of the neighbors are part of that, regardless of any actual risk.

I saw one article which said a company spent $500 million just on the design and bureaucracy to file an application. Before a single shovel of dirt was moved.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

An EIR covers the effects to the human environment as well as the wild. So the effect to land value and perceived fear of the neighbors are part of that, regardless of any actual risk

Yes, I am aware of what an EIR is and what it covers. I'm also aware of their shortcomings, but I'm also aware of exactly who would make hundreds of millions of dollars (and at whose expense) if they were scrapped.

I saw one article which said a company spent $500 million just on the design and bureaucracy to file an application. Before a single shovel of dirt was moved.

How much did that company spend on articles complaining about how much they spent?

The poor little things clearly had $500 million to spend and still believed they could profit from the building despite that.

You also danced around how much of that was actually spent on an EIR and what the context of it was, so deliberately that it makes me wonder if it's in your self interest to spread FUD.

What exactly does "design and bureaucracy" mean? Site selection, zoning approval, architectural design, engineering, EIRs, geotechnical surveys, legal fees for contracts and submissions could all fall under that extremely broad category.