Sunday, July 08, 2007

Spurious Associations

The 'Live Earth' concerts were intended to raise awareness about global warming. Yet several performers sported t-shirts with the slogan: "Say No to Nuclear Energy". Is this the left-wing equivalent of linking Iraq with 9/11?

I wonder how common it would be for people to accept just one or the other alleged connection. Perhaps this could provide a quick test of tribal affiliation?


  1. I am in general against global warming and in general pro nuclear energy (for the same reason).
    Yes I think it is a fairly good test I'm just a contrary person.

  2. I'm afraid I am still baffled by the whole notion. A rock concert against consumption? Which involves a huge amount of consumption? Some record executive somewhere has a strong sense of irony...

  3. I guess the idea is that not only forward steps are required to get to a destination - ie that the benefit of the political symbolism of so many people making a stand is more than the damage of the actual concert.

    BTW what is your position on nuclear energy and global warming for the record?

  4. David - so long as it prevents more damage than it causes, I don't see the problem.

    Genius - *shrug*, I don't really know enough about them to have an official position! It sounds like global warming is a fairly serious problem (though sometimes exaggerated). I'd like to see a carbon tax, or some other way to internalize environmental costs. I'm not opposed to nuclear power in principle, but I don't know enough to assess whether it's worth it in practice.

  5. good position,
    I should say I support nuclear energy as an option - it may well not be efficient in NZ particularly since we have so much in the way of hydro power options.

  6. I think that it would be fun to do this in philosophy as well.

    Go to an naturalizing epistemology with a "Stop the wrongful proliferation of analytic truths!" shirt; or a conference on 2D-ism about belief reports with a "MY mind will never supervene on the totality of physical facts!" wifebeater.

  7. Nuclear waste is a bit worse in some ways than carbon waste, so I can see enough reason to point out that just ending one form of pollution is not enough. A sideline factoid is that both oil and uranium deposits will be depleted in about 60 years.

  8. Sure, there are other environmental problems besides global warming. (Just like there are other bad guys besides Al Qaeda.) My complaint was the insinuation that they're related -- that nuclear power is a cause of global warming.

  9. "MY mind will never supervene on the totality of physical facts!"

    woohoo I want one of those


Visitors: check my comments policy first.
Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf. (If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts.)

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.