re: #80 Locker

Can’t help but say that ignoring Environmental Impact is what got us into this situation initially. It would be nice if processes were streamlined but I still think doing it right is better than doing it wrong and making something else worse. Just one perspective.

Whatever adverse environmental impact a plant might have locally is sure to be outweighed by the global effects to the upside. I don’t mean to suggest that we put nuclear power plants in the middle of the Everglades, on top of Half Dome, and cut down the Redwoods to make room for another, but fretting over whether the desert spotted mouse louse will have its habitat encroached on won’t DO. Worse still, fretting over whether there might possibly be some effect nobody can imagine, and spending decades dickering and bickering over wholly imaginary possibilities, is insane.

Serious environmentalism requires keeping an eye on the ball and it requires prioritizing. Mitigating and stemming global warming is necessary if we are to limit the far-reaching changes now afoot, changes that are shaping up to be another of the great waves of extinction in the history of life on earth.

We humans are a sturdy species. With a range that covers altitudes from below sea level to 15000 feet or so, and every continent but Antarctica, we ominvores will survive. We cannot screw things up that bad with mere climate change. Other, less fortunate species, have their backs to the wall. Maybe a few will be hurt by this or that power plant. But for the mass of them, as the climate goes, so they go.