[abricq]

I consider myself very much an ecologist, and also struggle to understand anti-nuclear ecologists. However there is one anti argument that I think is worth sharing, one friend exposed to me and that I think it is very pertinent: "One should be against nuclear energy because their lobbies encourage a society where energy is not limited. Having clean and (relatively) cheap energy is not the best way to go toward sobriety. And it is easy to confuse having a carbon-free energy source with having a new way to produce more cars, planes, phones, content, etc... which will only help capitalism to grow stronger"

I think there is a big part of truth here, and we (the pro-nuclear ecologist) must address an answer to this worry. My opinion is that we should separate this in two fights: (i) we must go for a more sustainable society by reducing our needs in energy and our general consumption; but it is irrational to think we will ever reduce our energy consumption level to a level sufficiently low that nuclear would not be the best option, hence (ii) we must keep learning how to build and maintain nuclear plants.

[bjornsing]

Let’s not entwine the solution to climate change with the communist revolution. Not everyone is in favor of the latter.

[tcfhgj]

Same holds true for a solution for climate change

[vzqx]

(1) When a resource is unlimited, it's easier to distribute that resource cheaply to everyone, which is exactly what communism strives for. Resource scarcity leads to power being concentrated in a small ownership class - e.g. capitalism.

(2) Why think "more cars, planes, phones, content, etc" are unique to capitalism? People want to travel and to be entertained, regardless of the economic system they live in. Communism doesn't mean people will suddenly want fewer material goods.

[hathchip]

This is a caricature of the anti-nuclear position. Renewables also offer the potential of a society where energy is not limited, why aren't communists also opposed to those?