shannonbinns’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Facts

  The American public's NIMBY feelings are facts.  This was my point.  I'm not arguing that NIMBY is justified, although I think it is.  Whether we agree or disagree with the safety of nuclear storage sites such as Hanford or Yucca Mountain, we must accept that not every American shares our view that these sites are safe.  This is the reality that must be considered when choosing which energy alternatives to pursue from a national energy policy standpoint.  Cohen's point was exactly this: don't want time and energy pursuing an option that the public will not support.On How to tell future generations about nuclear waste posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Facts

  The American public's NIMBY feelings are facts.  This was my point.  I'm not arguing that NIMBY is justified, although I think it is.  Whether we agree or disagree with the safety of nuclear storage sites such as Hanford or Yucca Mountain, we must accept that not every American shares our view that these sites are safe.  This is the reality that must be considered when choosing which energy alternatives to pursue from a national energy policy standpoint.  Cohen's point was exactly this: don't want time and energy pursuing an option that the public will not support.On Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Jack be NIMBY

  Cohen's assertion that siting nuclear facilities makes nuclear energy a non-starter in the United States is right on.  

  As evidence, in 2004 I worked with WashPIRG on a campaign to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from dumping additional wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State until cleaning up the existing waste, which is moving towards the Columbia River via groundwater.  We did this by placing an initiative on the November ballot and raising awareness of it across the state.  Essentially, the initiative stated that if passed, the DOE would be forced to clean up the mess before making it worse.  

  The initiative passed by the LARGEST MARGIN OF ANY IN STATE HISTORY -- nearly 70% voted for it.

  To me, this clearly reinforces the American public's position on nuclear waste generation and storage of its unavoidable radioactive wastes: Not In My Back Yard - better known as NIMBY.  

  And as far as those who advocate nuclear energy, I wonder how many would continue to do so if the backyard chosen for a new plant was their own.On How to tell future generations about nuclear waste posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Jack be NIMBY

  Cohen's assertion that siting nuclear facilities makes nuclear energy a non-starter in the United States is right on.  

  As evidence, in 2004 I worked with WashPIRG on a campaign to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from dumping additional wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State until cleaning up the existing waste, which is moving towards the Columbia River via groundwater.  We did this by placing an initiative on the November ballot and raising awareness of it across the state.  Essentially, the initiative stated that if passed, the DOE would be forced to clean up the mess before making it worse.  

  The initiative passed by the LARGEST MARGIN OF ANY IN STATE HISTORY -- nearly 70% voted for it.

  To me, this clearly reinforces the American public's position on nuclear waste generation and storage of its unavoidable radioactive wastes: Not In My Back Yard - better known as NIMBY.  

  And as far as those who advocate nuclear energy, I wonder how many would continue to do so if the backyard chosen for a new plant was their own.On Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well-intentioned but too idealistic....

  Nathan has made some points which I agree with in theory.  Yes, people should be more active in environmental issues than simply writing a check.  But as someone who has been a summer canvasser myself, most people are not interested in doing anymore than writing a check.  One might argue we in the enviro movement have created this apathy, but I don't think that is a fair argument.  Most Americans are too busy working (i.e. making money) to do more or simply aren't aware enough to want to do more.  

  Also, as others have said, raising money in this way, is unfortunately, necessary.  Where else will the money come from?  The vested corporate interests?

  Third, by your title alone you are discouraging action, which seems to contradict the point of your argument.  You write that those who are interested and have the time to become active (mostly students, but not only students by the way) shouldn't because it sends the wrong message.  But you do not propose an alternative way in which the thousands of people who canvass can find paid work in the environmental movement.  I would argue that this is because there currently is no other alternative.  Who else will hire (i.e. pay) thousands of students and others without professional environmental skills for the summer within the environmental community?On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses