That’s why we couldn’t end dst, calling it the sunshine protection act.
Get the left to protest and Pickett against solar and wind. Say it’s fascist nonsense. The right will jump on it
What if the left “cancels” solar because its power source causes cancer? Also, something something starts fires in blue states.
I heard that sunlight causes rainbows.
Gimme some of that refraction parade action
Bunch of NIMSS types on the right. Doubt they’d go for “far-field nuclear”
Now, something like “Ultra far east super nuclear warhead”…that might work.
wind and solar are not popular for conservatives because they were left talking points first. which obviously means it’s wrong, libtards owned yet again
If you go far enough right, solar and wind are extremely popular. Very much leads to some weirdness when I was researching solar for my house, and kept stumbling into prepper communities and the like.
Their biggest problem is that there’s not big money in them. Once you have solar power on your house, you don’t need to keep paying them every month. Where’s the fun in that for the rich?
Donald Trump also said that they’ll run out of wind if they start wind power farms.
To be fair, wind is also a form of solar power. (Wind being caused by the difference in heat between the different hemispheres/poles & the rotation of the earth)
So wind & solar power are indirect & direct long-range nuclear energy sources, respectively.
In the end, all power is solar power
Tides and nuclear power aren’t.
That comes from the energy from earth’s rotation. That energy is left over from the formation of the sun.
Plus nuclear wouldn’t work without fissionable elements, which wouldn’t be here without supernovae aka dying suns.
Which is why we need to finally develop fusion, to free us from the tyranny of power of stellar origin!
…if you ignore the fact that fusion is basically replicating what a star does, that is
I’m honestly wondering this. Renewables reduce dependency on foreign countries, so using them can be interpreted as a patriotic act. They make sense, geostrategically, not just for saving earth but also for reducing the leverage other countries have over yours. This could be something that both, green activists and nationalists, can jointly agree on. I don’t get it.
The mistake was applying logic to a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. Their talking heads say renewables bad. The thought process ended there.
I think the problem, as it often is, is big businesses lobbying for continued relevancy at the cost of societal progress.
This. Tbh most conservatives I’ve talked to say shit like “solar would be great if it were viable/cheaper to install,” they’re not against it really, they just don’t think it works well enough yet, which is largely due to the efforts of lobbyists.
I firmly believe that without lobbyists pushing us into red or blue boxes, we’d all find common ground on a lot of important issues.
I’ve known some conservatives who are very much into solar power in a sort of independent/self-sufficient/pseudo-prepper type of way.
I agree. I’m sure there’d still be some contentious issues but a large portion of it is entirely manufactured.
Even works down to the state level. My state, Wisconsin, has no coal mines, no oil wells, and no natural gas wells. The closest thing we have to any of it is the best sand for fracking. Otherwise, every dollar of energy we spend ends up leaving the state one way or another.
Unless, that is, we do something intelligent, like building an offshore wind farm on Lake Michigan. Though I’m sure someone will complain that we’re killing the whales.
“Actually Natural Gas” “Orbital Fusion”
I mean Natural Gas is as natural as Iron or Coal. The problem is extracting and burning it is causing issues.
They’re both Orbital Fusion.
We should try to harness the power of the tides, since that’s lunar gravity driven.
um…
Moon Rodeo Power?
Does the right like nuclear? I thought they didn’t. It’s pretty clean efficient energy, though it has been overtaken in recent years by wind and solar for cost.
They like nuclear and hate regulation, so that’s a match made in heaven for disasters.
The right likes nuclear when they can drop it on someone.
Maggie Thatcher was one of the earliest politicians to talk about global warming. She did it to prop up nuclear, which was losing the narrative at the time to Greenpeace and the like.
They like nuclear in so far as they can use it to beat certain elements of the environmental left over the head. Conservative governments have come in gone in both the US and UK, and they’ve done very little to actually build out nuclear power.
In the US I thought nuclear was one of the few bipartisan issues they can agree on.
Yeah, they love it and are constantly criticizing the left for chasing renewables as a solution to our energy needs and (for the less extreme ones who accept it’s real) climate change.
At least that’s pretty close, only a 17% difference.
Yeah, attitudes have really cooled about nuclear power over the years. We might be in a different climate position right now if we hadn’t shied away from it decades ago.
Climate, and geopolitical too. Look at France vs Germany in the last few years.
In what world does a 51% approval rating count as loving it? 67% feels like a stretch to even call a consensus.
Well they don’t seem to love it as much as they love coal and oil, that’s for sure, but they have been very loud about their support of nuclear in recent history.
It’s become much more bipartisan too.
They don’t mind being under someone’s thumb for basic necessities as long as that someone is an unaccountable business owner.
