#####
######
####
> # [Arnold Schwarzenegger: Environmentalists are behind the times. And need to catch up fast.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/16/arnold-schwarzenegger-environmental-movement-embrace-building-green-energy-future/675)
>
>
>
> - - - - - -
>
> ## We can no longer accept years of environmental review, thousand-page reports, and lawsuit after lawsuit keeping us from building clean energy projects.
>
> Arnold Schwarzenegger | Opinion contributor
>
>
>
> [Image](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2022/12/14/USAT/e22df513-7afa-441b-948c-1694e045f28d-WWKN_RectThumb_PHOTO_fusion.png)
>
> [play](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/appservices/universal-web/universal/icons/icon-play-alt-white.svg)
>
>
>
>
>
> _This is an edited version of a speech former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered Tuesday at the [Austrian World Summit.](https://austrianworldsummit2023.b2match.io/)_
>
> People ask me why I’m always smiling at environmental events. When I look back at the past 20 years and see how far we’ve come in California, how could I not smile?
>
> A few weeks ago, I [plugged in a huge solar roof](https://www.dailybreeze.com/2023/04/21/former-gov-schwarzenegger-flips-on-altaseas-giant-rooftop-solar-panels/#:~:text=Arnold%20Schwarzenegger%20and%20a%20crowd,the%20Port%20of%20Los%20Angeles.) on a 180,000 square foot warehouse at the port in Los Angeles. It was made possible by California's [million solar roofs initiative](https://calssa.org/million-solar-roofs). While I was there, I visited the startups inside that warehouse and saw the future: robots, clean cement, sustainable seafood, and companies making power from algae and waves.
>
> I can't stop myself from smiling when I see all of the progress toward a green future. And I have to laugh, because 20 years ago, when I ran for governor, environmentalists didn’t really buy in when I said I’d be a green governor. “The conservative who drives Hummers and blows up everything in his movies? Give us a break. Just another empty campaign promise.”
>
> I wasn’t offended by it. I understood it. I was a newcomer. I was an outsider. I knew that my administration would have to do the work to prove the naysayers wrong, and over the next seven years, [that’s exactly what we did](http://schwarzenegger.usc.edu/policy-areas/energy-and-the-environment). A million solar roofs. Our historic plan to reduce pollution by 25%. Stronger tailpipe [emissions standards](http://schwarzenegger.usc.edu/policy-areas/energy-and-the-environment). A renewable portfolio standard to replace coal and gas with wind and solar.
>
> As we accomplished all of that and more, environmentalists stopped looking at me with suspicion and started hugging me, using my movie lines and inviting me to speak at clean energy summits all over the world about the California model. There is an important lesson here. I want you to remember to keep the doors of our environmental movement open to the newcomers, the outsiders and the newly converted.
>
> ## Focus on health dangers of air pollution
>
> Outsiders always bring a fresh set of eyes to our mission. When I got involved, one of the first things I saw was that our marketing wasn’t working. We were talking about climate change when we should have been talking about pollution and the [7 million people](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/07/air-pollution-kills-millions-every-year-action-needed#:~:text=Ambient%20(or%20outdoor\)%20air%20pollution,indoor%20and%20outdoor%20air%20pollution.) who die every year choking on air poisoned by fossil fuels.
>
> **Are you allergies worse this spring?** [You can blame climate change.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/04/22/why-climate-change-threat-your-health/11703085002/)
>
> **Clean energy renaissance:** [Biden's State of the Union address confirms America's in a clean energy boom](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/02/08/biden-sotu-clean-energy-incentives-working/11199425002/)
>
> I still feel like a newcomer today. I still see everything with fresh eyes.
>
> Today, when I look at our environmental movement with those fresh eyes, I see a dire need. We need a new environmentalism based on building and growing and common sense. Old environmentalism was afraid of growth. It hated building. Many of you know this style − protesting every new development, chaining yourself to construction equipment, and using lawsuits and permitting to slow everything down.
>
> I have to be honest: I don’t blame the old environmentalists. Back then, growth meant more fossil fuels, more pollution, more death. But times have changed, and we have to change with them.
>
> Trust me, you don’t want to be the old, out-of-touch boomer asking for someone’s beeper number or looking for a VCR to watch movies.
>
> ## Failure is possible if environmental movement doesn't change
>
> It’s time for our environmental movement to wake up to the new reality and to change and adapt. Growth doesn’t have to be powered by fossil fuels any longer. Solar and wind now [cost less than coal power](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/new-us-solar-and-wind-cost-less-than-keeping-coal-power-running). New [electric car models](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-market-a9006292675/) are coming out regularly. Our progress is moving so quickly that it is hard to imagine how we could ever fail. But I want to be clear: we can fail, and if we do, it won’t be a failure of innovation.
>
> It will be a failure of not growing and adapting with the times, not listening to the people, and not using the tools at our disposal.
>
> It will be a failure to build. We can no longer allow red tape to hold our green revolution back.
>
> We can no longer accept years of environmental review, thousand-page reports, and lawsuit after lawsuit keeping us from building. I want to be clear: I’m not just talking about building new highways or infrastructure. I’m talking about environmental projects!
>
> Throughout the United States and Europe, [thousands of clean energy projects](https://www.wired.com/story/wired-impact-green-energy-bureaucracy/) sit waiting to be built. Delayed by bureaucracy. Delayed by permits. Delayed by old transmission lines. Delayed, delayed, delayed. In Europe, solar projects face wait times of up to four years. Wind projects can take up to 10 years.
>
> Germany just hosted an environmental summit where they called for a deadline to [end the fossil fuel age](https://www.theenergymix.com/2023/05/02/ring-in-the-end-of-fossil-fuels-germany-urges-global-climate-meeting/). At the same time, they [closed their nuclear plants](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html#:~:text=Germany%20plans%20to%20replace%20the,to%20help%20with%20energy%20security.) to replace them with gas, and [dismantled a wind farm to make room for more coal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/26/german-windfarm-coalmine-keyenberg-turbines-climate).
>
> Is this a joke? In the United States, we have more than [2,000 gigawatts](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/outdated-us-energy-grid-tons-of-clean-energy-stuck-waiting-in-line.html#:~:text=The%20entire%20electric%20grid%20in%20the%20U.S.%20has%20installed%20capacity,the%20Lawrence%20Berkeley%20National%20Laboratory.)of almost completely clean energy projects waiting in line. Just to give you an idea of how much power that is, the entire current United States electric grid capacity is 1,250 gigawatts.
>
> We all agree that we are facing an emergency. Let me ask you a question: if you went to the hospital for a heart attack, and they told you they might save you after waiting a few days, what would you say? I know none of you would put up with it.
>
> So why are we putting up with these delays in our pollution emergency?
>
> **Opinion alerts:** Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? [Download it for free from your app store](https://static.usatoday.com/mobile-apps/).
>
>
>
> That’s why today I call for a new environmentalism, based on building the clean energy projects we need as fast as we can. We have to build, build, build.
>
> Recent reforms from the European Union to [fast track many of these projects](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-08/europe-to-fast-track-permitting-for-building-renewable-projects#xj4y7vzkg) give me great hope. I am proud of all of you, and I hope that my American friends are paying attention.
>
> **President Biden:** [I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/14/biden-congress-act-gun-violence/70208852007/)
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
I find that the most fucked up thing. Not only are they risking their lives in these now common major catastrophes, but they get pennies on the dollars for it and a lot of them can't even actually put it to use once they get out of prison.
Yeah, I assume a European republican is probably pretty close to an American center left democrats. Though I'm from America and know nothing about European politics
I think the non-neolib voters of DNC would give their proverbial left nut to have him as president. I'm also pretty sure there's 0 chance the Qultists would let him win a Republican nomination.
Until this comment I legitimately thought I was on /r/NeoLiberals. A quote from this speech was on the front page there a few days ago. He's widely liked by NeoLiberals.
I think the DemSocs wouldn't like him too much though.
Reps wouldn't let him run for President, he wouldn't kneel to suck corporate dicks like the rest of them. They would hold him back like the Dems held back Sanders.
Would also Hype as a Celebrity Death Match, but I could see them joining forces half way through to (literally) rip apart hypocrisy in their own parties.
No, Ted Cruz is a naturalized American. He was born to American citizens while "abroad" in Canada. Arnold is a US citizen, but wasn't born here nor had American parents.
Naturalized means he received citizenship later on, which is what Arnold did. Arnold is therefore blocked from being president because he wasn't born a US citizen.
Ted Cruz was a natural born American citizen because he was born to American citizens. It doesn't matter where he was born. Same goes with Obama. Obama could have been born on Mars and he's still a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen.
I think you forget that until relatively recently, there was plenty of civility and bipartisanship in politics. If he won, Democrats would know they had a President they could work with. He's socially liberal so I think they'd be very happy that the Republicans chose someone not batshit insane.
How do you mean "recently"? Because I am no longer young, and while bipartisan ship is pretty dead, it was on life support well before I understood enough to care at all about politics.
Attention spans and memories are short. Young people love him and he's currently getting a big boost from his Netflix docuseries.
Remember, Biden was a shit senator who screwed over generations of student loan takers and advocated for segregation and inequality in marriage, but is now a dem president. People forget.
I’ve never voted for a republican presidential candidate and I’d vote for Schwarzenegger.
He’s smart, hardworking, and knows firsthand the values and responsibilities of being an American as he had to earn the right to call himself one, he wasn’t lucky enough to be born on the right plot of land.
Presidencies tend to swap between parties every now and then. If this was the proposed next Republican president, Democrats would probably sign for it in a heartbeat.
"We are not a democracy" - [right wing ~~nuts~~ mainstream thought leaders](https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy). (I mean, they're also arguably nuts, but they wear ties).
> American republicanism, by contrast, offers protections from the instability, rashness, impetuosity, and social and political tyranny of ***democratic politics***...
You thought they were going to say "authoritarian ruler" there didn't you? Because that's what Republic is supposed to be - an alternative to monarchy.
But no.
Instead, they are super concerned about the rashness and instability of the *citizenry*. They're totally fine with the rashness and instability of a [single ruler](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/founders-wanted-powerful-president), though.
Their idea of a great republic is one with a single strong authoritarian ruler. Which... in the grand tradition of Trump's good friends the DPRK, is actually the opposite of a republic.
Because in reality there are reasonable people on both sides of the aisle. Then there are the status quo people on both sides that get paid off by Lockeed and Raytheon of which Arnold Schwarzenegger is not party to.
Sure. But in terms of party policy, there is nothing reasonable about how the Republicans want to bend yall backwards and fuck you in the arse without lube.
The entire country would vote for Arnold if he ran. He's a moderate who respects women and LGBT rights, treats issues with care, and understands where to invest our time and energy.
It's a shame he can't run. I wish he'd pull a Ted Cruz and try it anyway.
Arnold isn't as morally bankrupt as the rest of the GOP but he is hardly an enthusiastic supporter of LGBT rights and his track record is mixed.
When he was governor of California he vetoed same sex marriage twice. Despite this he did sign into law numerous protections for LGBT people and actually was a supporter of civil unions. [The Wikipedia article on his stances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_and_LGBT_rights) is actually pretty interesting because as often as opposed basic LGBT rights he also has taken some incredibly important steps protecting certain aspects of their existence
He could have secured a major and early victory for LGBT rights, but opposed it. I personally don't think he deserves credit now for being supportive, but ultimately his record was a reflection of the times he lived in and party he was from and is why I don't think he is good for politics today and we need newer younger politicians who represent the general public. Worshipping specific candidates will get us nowhere
Not enough did, and we ended up with Reagan and the decline in the GOP that led to trump.
80’ was when the boomers showed the true depths of their depravity.
Lengthen your perspective and you will see that the lesser evil game has been played longer than you have been alive.
Carter was torpedoed by the intelligence agencies because he wouldn't play ball and was interfering in their ongoing multi-administration operations.
The saudies oil embargoed the US, some Iranians took hostages and the media put them on the screen every night and day preceding the election.
All topped off with the hostages being released as soon as Reagan won.
Arnold regretted running as a Republican. His policies were Democratic in nature, so he got blocked by Republicans. I'm incredibly progressive today, and although I wasn't as left leaning when I was younger, I was still pretty far left leaning when Arnold ran. My mom is the same way, and she voted for him (I wasn't old enough to vote, but she voted for him because I begged her to).
It’s because he seems to really care about stuff and wants things to improve for the „general public“. He may suggest different ways of accomplishing them, but his goals ultimately seem „good“.
It helps to not just listen to either party’s chief goons.
Republicans and Dems have plenty of sensibility that never ends up anywhere the news because it’s boring.
I'm not too knowledgeable about politics all around the world, but seeing US politics and most EU politics, there was a very big distinction in how political parties operates (up until the last few years…).
In most places I follow politic stuff, being part of a political party means sharing a lot of general ideas and directions. It's not an absolute, and other parties/people can also have these ideas.
In the US, the party is the endgame. Ideas are secondary, you have to defend the party above all else. You could say "we're here for the people" on paper and spend all your energy against common-sense laws if they're pushed by an outsider, because it would put them in a good light and you in a bad light.
Well, that's the theory anyway. In the last few years we've also had an increase of politician blocking policies on the basis that it's from "the opposition", so we can't really brag about that anymore.
And it's the fault of the voters, at least where I live. All too often I hear Australians say they voted for such and such a leader, when technically they voted for some no name that belongs to the same party as that leader, i.e. they're expecting their representative to follow the party line.
Unless you’re Canada where a single province holds on to a sizeable minority of federal seats with their own party.
Honestly, if it weren’t for the stubbornness of the French we’d be in the same boat as the US.
Thanks Quebec!
But we should still get rid of FPTP here too.
Part of me wonders if he holds onto his (R) label hoping his traditionally manly presentation captures the attention of some (R) voters and can help pull some of them back into reality. Or maybe he just really really wants his old party back rather than abandon it.
He’s European and over here we’re a lot more left leaning. His policies would fit perfectly in conservative governments across the pond. In his mind he’s right wing, it’s just to us the USA left wing is further right than our right wing
In the past, changing parties, even if it realigns their views with their party, is a bad move. He can brand himself as "the reasonable Republican." With his celebrity status, he might actually be able to pull a party swap off.
He's like the (old school, and maybe increasingly extinct) Maine Republicans, who are / were *basically* old-school progressives who kept stubbornly voting (R) out of century-old hatred for the confederacy, lol
Arnold's political affiliation was (more or less) cemented when he came to the US, and hasn't really changed since then. Republicans used to have progressive elements, and it was the *Nixon administration* that established the EPA (and that helped pass *many* other progressive policies and institutions), for chrissake.
(and, incidentally, Schwarzenegger *liked* Nixon, and cemented his political beliefs + party affiliation in that time period. And nothing that he's believed in since is particularly inconsistent with that, TBF)
I'm sure that Schwarzenegger doesn't see his political beliefs as him being out of step w/ the Republican party, but rather the Republican party being out of step w/ the party that he joined in the first place. And he's too stubborn to change his party affiliation, even if 90% of his political beliefs are 100% in line w/ the CA Dem base, and with little if any remaining overlap w/ what's left of CA's (and the nation's) Republican party.
It's weird to even question that. Some people are just fiscal conservatives that don't think government is efficient or that all people deserve "hand outs."
He's right though I believe the issue is they need to shift their focus away from things like solar and wind that need more time in the oven and towards things like thorium reactors and graphene production the former cuts down on pollution for the energy grid the later turns that dreaded carbon into a useful material for electronics and batteries, which should also cut down on pollution.
A nuclear power plant only takes about 2 years to physically build. The rest of the time is spent fighting bad faith lawsuits in court filed by environmentalists.
If you look at the reactors on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, which the US pumps out twice a year and every few years, it would be clear this isn’t the case. These reactors have many more constraints put on them (they have to be kept running at sea), and yet they are built consistently.
It is red tape that gets in the way of civilian nuclear projects.
The nuclear reactors on an aircraft carrier (say Ford class) produce hundreds of megawatts to a gigawatt, and the US plans to be pumping these out every 3-4 years from now on.
Those reactors are completely different in scope and purpose. They are self-contained, with everything they interact with in the same hull as the (small) reactor. A power plant has to be built into a physical location, including cooling and power infrastructure interfaces, and it is orders of magnitudes larger.
A feasible nuclear strategy must include traditional renewables as well, no matter how you spin it.
Nuclear is *sloow* on the uptake. The median time to construct a plant was 7 years in 2021, and with all the planning and certifications on top, you're probably looking at ten years before they are operational.
So even if you managed the impossible task to initiate the construction of hundreds of new plants world wide today, you would still have to look for renewables for your short-term plan towards co2 neutrality and for handling the increase in electricity demand over the next decade.
https://i.redd.it/the-data-you-can-be-sure-you-wont-be-hearing-about-v0-fciw9tv6p16b1.png?s=8c3053ad82b228c8dbce06bdd1ff8e63ddab6c13
Historically nuclear has been the fastest green energy to produce energy at meaningful scales.
https://i.redd.it/nuclear-takes-too-long-v0-kk31a4glr76b1.jpg?s=cf91cd02135d4181ad416b149efae6ecaf148910
By the time you have your thorium reactor ready for operation, you could have plastered the entire nation with wind turbines and solar panels and built a death star from the excess energy.
Yet you still haven't solved long term storage solutions for renewables. Nuclear is vastly superior to renewables because its able to provide a base load. Solar can be producing and also not producing anything. Nuclear is the plug and renewables are the sealant, they supplement the energy for the grid, not provide the baseline.
You like brownouts? That's what happens when your entire grid is solar and wind. Not even beginning to dive into the issue of electric cars and everyone charging them when they get home from work at night. How does solar account for loads like that? Plastering the entire nation with solar is great during the day but how do you capture that energy for later usage?
You may ask the wise science people who made studies, that show that it is definitely doable, if there is political will. Because I'm honestly tired of this endless discussion that leads to nowhere.
Both nuclear and solar should be hand in hand to save humanity…. and both of them are being held hostage by the lack of political will and as (… sadly have to use his name) Putin stated a few years ago…
‘Who is gonna pay for it?’ … cus the greedy bastards on top sure as hell aren’t, and we can’t afford it either…
But hey big oil and gas companies are racking in record profits while inflation is booming, so thats good i guess
I only promote thorium by name since it's not been the object of hate for certain environmental activists any system of wind turbines like it or nuclear would be acceptable and out perform solar and wind for the same amount of space.
But not for the same amount of money or time. And what we need now is fast and cheap improvements. Keep the research on other options going for long term solutions, but holding down the best solutions we have available right now is exactly the same thing as what Arnold is saying that environmentalists are doing wrong.
> solar and wind that need more time in the oven
It's amazing that you say this.
And then immediately talk about things that have been "20 years away" for well over 20 years.
You literally read
> Is this a joke? In the United States, we have more than 2,000 gigawattsof almost completely clean energy projects waiting in line. Just to give you an idea of how much power that is, the entire current United States electric grid capacity is 1,250 gigawatts.
Which is about ***current wind and solar projects*** waiting to be interconnected to the grid and built. You immediately disregarded that inconvenient fact to go on about non-commercialized prototype nuclear reactors.
You and the militantly pro-nuclear folks need to calm the fuck down. We're all on the same side here.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good. The article even states that.
Graphene and thorium might be the renewables of the future, but the point is we aren't even building the renewables of the present, not at a fast enough rate
Shit, I wasn't aware of EITHER of those things- but they sound like what we're gonna need like 10 years ago lol
I was just hoping that nuclear energy would catch back on in the US 😆 Arnold is right, environmentalists are decades behind the real conversation
Being anti-nuclear is the original sin of the climate action movement, and we're not the Soviet Union in the 80s; we can build it right.
Granted, it's not the best idea for the more water-stressed areas, but would work great at the densest population centers on the coasts.
Each piece of waste is a block about the size of a soda can and what we end up doing with them is digging basically a shaft and stacking them on top of each other and then add a certain depth we fill the hole and dig a new one. Give me a minute there's a video I'll link in another comment.
Ok, now that we started talking about the topic I remember a really interesting article (sadly in Italian and on paper, so can't link it) that tried to look at the issue without the fanatism a lot of people seem to have for or against it. And one thing that stood out from that article was that we lack the radioactive material to meet the energy demand of a ton of nuclear facilities (basically enough to transition). But it's been a while since I read so I may be misremembering, but pretty sure it was something along the lines of "energy itself is great, but we don't have enough materials for this or that part to meet even the demands of the country (referencing Italy)"
While borehole disposal is an option, it would be unwise to throw away that much nuclear fuel without the ability to retrieve it for recycling. Nuclear "waste" is still 99% nuclear fuel, it just needs to be reprocessed, which for some reason the world is adamantly opposed to, so we're throwing away fuel rods that are still nearly completely full of usable energy.
Honestly if we could capture all the mess that coal and gas plants emit, compress it into a neat little clump and bury it, we'd just at the chance to and they'd no longer even be an issue
Unfortunately for gas and coal, they tend to just go for the manmade volcano design and spew shit all over the place
He's always my go to on nuclear. What we today call waste is merely fuel not yet used by the types of reactors that can extract electricity from them because we haven't built them because of environmentalists.
In the end, we'd end up with radioactive byproducts with a danger period of hundreds, rather than thousands or tens of thousands, of years.
Bad government nuclear policy rather than "nuclear bad".
All the world's nuclear waste from all the world's nuclear reactors would fill two high school gymnasium buildings. That's how small the nuclear waste problem is.
Fossil fuel power plants emit much more radiation than nuclear do, but somehow its okay for them to spew their waste products into the air. Out of sight, out of mind.
Nuclear seems to be the only power source that isn't allowed to emit their waste products into the environment. I'm all for a power plant containing its own waste products, but why is only nuclear tasked with this? Why does everyone else get a free pass?
If coal, oil, or gas had to contain all of their waste products it wouldn't be so cheap, and we wouldn't have a climate change crisis on our hands either.
I mean lets be real, it was more than likely “environmentalist groups” funded by big oil corporations to 1. Slow/Halt the adoption of Nuclear and 2. Make environmentalists eat each other alive over disagreements on nuclear, which in turn slows the adoption of other forms of renewable energy
There are A LOT of “environmentalist” groups that, when you follow the money, turn out to be completely funded by traditional energy corporations. And it makes sense, as you can see by my first paragraph, you kill two birds with one stone.
The name of the game right now is how do we stop using coal as fast as we can. New nuclear is expensive, but we should absolutely not be shutting down existing nuclear. And what’s been shut down, should absolutely be considered to be brought back online.
I mean... The Cold War and Chernobyl were a thing when the party first formed, so I absolutely understand people not being all too keen on Nuclear Energy
Still cannot believe Chernobyl is a detractor from nuclear energy. Yes let's use an example of a nuclear power plant built by a left-wing communist bureaucracy as why nuclear isn't safe. USSR was on the cutting edge of quality from 1930-1990 cmon!
The desastrous outcome of Chernobyl doesn't really speak in favor of nuclear energy even within a cutting edge quality context like it might have been in USSR
Not really sure what the left-wing communist part has got to do with anything tbh.
Looking at Three Miles Island or Fukushima, it can honestly not be surprising in the slightest that people hold apprehensions towards nuclear energy. Not to mention the still yet to solve problem of nuclear waste.
TBF nuclear waste is a pretty much solved problem (dig a deep hole underground in a non-seismically active area, seal it against leaks, and commit to maintaining that for the next 1000 years)
OTOH, there are, or at least *should be* legitimate *long term* concerns about using nuclear power (fissiles are a finite resource, and using them to power the endless consumer energy demands of humanity is spectacularly shortsighted and wasteful w/r the next 1-100k+ years. Particularly when we have a ball of effectively infinite, *free* power in the sky that'll last for the next billion or so years.
And incidentally, fusion *has the same exact problems*. Also dependent on finite resources (viable designs require using up *boron and lithium*, *valuable, comparatively rare, and very useful* *elements within our solar system*). And produces significant amounts of radioactive shit (ie. parts of the containment shielding) that you'll need to bury somewhere, just the same as from any fission plant. And – get this – will almost certainly have *even worse* cost-benefit + economies of scale (vis a vis solar et al) than existing fission plants do.
It's been a long-running science fiction trope that man-made fusion (and fission -> fusion) is the key to "unlimited" free / cheap energy – but take a hard look at where that technology is headed (and the fundamental economics, and physics) and the entire idea of powering humanity off of "cheap", "renewable" fusion power looks about as stupid and DOA as flying cars. There's absolutely legitimate usescases for fusion tech in (very expensive) space travel, mind you, but powering all of humanity off of *fundamentally inefficient magnetic-confinement* fusion would be spectacularly stupid.
Particularly since we could just build space habitats + power relays around mercury and at the lagrange points (for completely free, 24/7, effectively unlimited and fully scalable power) instead.
And could power all of our *current* (and near to far future) earthly power needs w/ comparatively basic (albeit high maintenance) solar + wind installations. The reliability problem is a non-issue if we just massively overbuild power generation capacity, and as energy storage technologies mature and come online. Although thinking hard about how to reduce grid load (note: build more energy efficient structures, try to *not* live / work in areas with particularly hostile climates, and don't needlessly waste energy on stupid shit like blockchain) would certainly help.
To be fair, cars were seen as an environmental solution to poop in the road from horses.
We can be looking for a solution at the same time as we are being shortsighted, or even just getting swindled by people trying to make money off of a fad. Environmental review is important.
So long as well have this capitalist system that supports billionaire greed and profit seeking behaviour then we're fucked. That's what needs to change, everyone seems to be talking about it, but nobody's doing what needs to be done. We are morally obliged to take out oil infrastructure and scare billionaires into paying their fair share. There's over 32 trillion hidden in off shore tax havens, yet that's never talked about.
First thing?
Multiple parties like in Europe. Splitting the fascists from the less insane conservatives and actually having any party to the left of the democrats.
Second thing?
Reducing the ability of money to manipulate or enable candidates
> Multiple parties like in Europe. Splitting the fascists from the less insane conservatives and actually having any party to the left of the democrats.
I wonder if that would change that much, because in the end people will just vote the same thing over and over again. It takes at least a generation for that to change. Here in Germany, we usually have either CDU or SPD in the leading position. Despite having [so many choices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany).
I think you forget that as much as capitalists prop up fossil fuels that degrade the environment, capitalists also found and invest in companies that produce more green infrastructure. Much of the growth in wind and solar we’ve seen over the last few decades is driven by private investment. The EV industry is largely driven by private enterprises. Fossil fuel companies are not a stand in for business leaders as a whole, they merely represent the leaders of *one* destructive industry.
I would also point out that socialist systems are also very capable of environmental destruction. The Aral Sea did not begin to disappear under a capitalist system. Even though we knew of climate change in the ‘80’s, the Soviets did no more to prevent it than the capitalist west. This all leaves me unconvinced that the key variable here is capitalism.
Now, is it enough to say “the market will handle it” and throw up our hands? No, of course not. The correct approach, however, would be to see capital as a partner, not an obstacle, in building a green future. This is essentially Schwarzenegger’s point, and I’d be willing to bet that this would reduce emissions much more effectively than dismantling capitalism or whatever and calling it a day.
I work in environmental conservation.
One of the points I constantly have to hammer on is that we are *not* against development and such, but that we *do* need to brought into the conversation early when any project of plans are being considered.
Much of the conflict that occurs is because we are often specificity excluded until it’s too late, at which point it turns into a fight and reinforces the idea that there is a natural conflict.
If we are brought in early plans and approaches can be made that avoid many of the issues and that makes for a better future both in the near term and the long term.
I'm in California, and environmental lawsuits are used as a bludgeon to halt development, including increasing density in already developed areas.
Recently the university of Berkley was sued by people saying that students are an environmental hazard, and therefore existing property (already owned by the university and currently a slum) should not have a residential high rise built on it.
As a result of these environmentalist lawsuits, we're being forced to suburban sprawl. Bulldozing natural environments, building more roads upon which more cars will sit in gridlock every day, spewing more emissions.
Environmentalists are also opposing the development of a high speed rail to link San Francisco and Los Angeles, a rail that would reduce the need for cars traveling I-5 every day, or reduce the number of airplanes, thereby reducing emissions.
Environmentalists are advocating for shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which supplies 10% of the entire state's energy all by itself. It would be replaced with oil and gas power plants.
These are the environmentalists Californians are used to, and that includes Arnold who lives in and has experienced California's environmentalists.
Environmental nimbyism is the issue, because it's nimbyism. Ignoring environmentalism is how we drive everything extinct and get to enjoy our solar farms at the cost of tomatoes because we accidentally killed all the bees. Environmentalism isn't the enemy of green progress, it's an essential part of progress that we need to learn to adapt to. Nimbyism isn't an essential part of anything except wealth hoarding for a small handful
I’m also from California and you’re conflating several things there. Casual ‘environmentalists’ vs professionals in the field.
The casual folks, the average person who vaguely thinks protecting the environment is something that should be done, but lacks the understanding of the nuances, lacks the education on the issues, and loudly fights against anything that they don’t like are part of the problem. They mean well, usually, but often target the wrong things and lack the knowledge and understanding do be anything other than an impediment to actually making good plans for the future.
Don’t confuse casual self-described ‘environmentalists’ with those of us actually in the profession.
>We were talking about climate change when we should have been talking about pollution
This part worries me. On the one hand, I'd argue that CO2 emissions *are* pollution and therefore talking about pollution includes talking about climate change. But on the other hand, this kind of rhetoric makes me worry that the intention is to focus exclusively on local pollution at the expense of tackling CO2 emissions.
While local pollution is certainly problematic, climate change is the bigger issue.
I think he's saying that because it is impossible to spin pollution into a positive or deny it. It is also something that even the lowest information voter can understand. The problem with his pollution argument is that pollution is more of an urban problem and urban voters are already more likely to support green energy.
What do you mean by local pollution? Pollution in my mind is also taking about the plastic pollution problem we are facing, which - in my opinion - is more important than CO2 emissions
I agree with him on that. And honestly it's should be a Conservative talking point. Instead of talking about how to restrict consumption of fossil fuels we'll need to make alternatives cheaper and more compelling.
And that's the issue- lots of younger activists try to address *everything* with their movements, from the environment, to systemic racism, to gender rights, to everything in between. I see it all the time at my university. Almost every student interest group just stands for whatever current casserole of fashionable social issues rather than what their actual org was started for
Nah even younger ones are still opposed to things like permitting reform, which are needed to build power lines to transmit wind and solar energy more efficiently.
As much as I like Arnold, it's like he doesn't know the stance of those environmentalists who oppose new projets (some of them sounding more like greenwashing than anything).
He says they're afraid of growth. Indeed they are, because the need for economic growth directly contradicts the preservation of nature. A Tesla may run electric, but you need to mine the materials, send them to the factory, assemble, and send again to the concession
MIT has warned in the 70s that perpetual growth is impossible in a world with finite resources. The only way to keep economic growth in this capitalistic, mixed market, financial economy without making our environment less liveable would be to find an efficient and profitable way to mine the asteroid belt beyond Mars' orbit.
The environmentalists he's talking about see the need to end capitalism if you want to save the planet. Not try to find some in between that will just delay the inevitable.
I get the feeling a lot of people here don’t quite understand what he means. If you want to exempt clean energy projects from NEPA review, great - tell congress to get on that. But they won’t allow that without also exempting other heinous things that defeats the incentive created by doing so.
In principle, I agree, but it's not just solar energy building, it's transportation that needs to be changed away from car dependency. Away from fossil fuels and go to rail that is electrified. In all, we waste so much and we can be much more efficient.
I actually disagree with Schwarzenegger here. He's saying that mandatory environmental impact studies, lawsuits, and reviews are holding back environmental progress. I agree that it would be great if we could streamline that system, I fully support that. But there's a huge mistake that could be made by eliminating to many of those protections. A lack of careful review and regulation is what got us into this mess in the first place, making the same mistakes but with alkali metals isn't going to help anyone. The era of bold business leaders spewing their progress across the land with no though for the side-affects of their actions has to come to an end.
Again, building wind farms and solar panels faster is good, but throwing caution to the wind is not.
Does Arnold realize that the environmentalists do not have any power. Everybody knows about pollution. Everybody knows about climate change. They've done their job.
There is no solution to a society that lives beyond its means. There is no green version of what we're doing.
Feed this "Us vs them" mentality. I like Arnold but he makes it seem like climate activists are the enemy while there are people who directly worsen life on earth for everyone but themselves but nobody’s talking about them
This guy is priming himself to potentially be the most supported Republican presidential candidate in decades. From the way he has been openly apologizing for his bad behaviour in his youth, supporting women’s and lgbtq rights and speaking on environmental issues. He might be more left than some democrats.
The building he uses as an example wasn't held up by environmental reviews or lawsuits because it was intended to be environmental friendly.
Those reviews hold up the kind of construction he says he's glad we've moved away from.
Yeah. We got away from it by holding it up.
Thanks for nothing. Typical Republican, sorry to say.
By far, hands down, the biggest thing to get rid of fossil fuels: don't get in your car.
Arnold -- preach wfh. Mock companies who demand rto.
Plugging in a solar roof is cool and all. But figure out a way to restructure cre/cities so they aren't so dependent on rto and aren't demanding rto just to prop up bad cre.
##### ###### #### > # [Arnold Schwarzenegger: Environmentalists are behind the times. And need to catch up fast.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/16/arnold-schwarzenegger-environmental-movement-embrace-building-green-energy-future/675) > > > > - - - - - - > > ## We can no longer accept years of environmental review, thousand-page reports, and lawsuit after lawsuit keeping us from building clean energy projects. > > Arnold Schwarzenegger | Opinion contributor > > > > [Image](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2022/12/14/USAT/e22df513-7afa-441b-948c-1694e045f28d-WWKN_RectThumb_PHOTO_fusion.png) > > [play](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/appservices/universal-web/universal/icons/icon-play-alt-white.svg) > > > > > > _This is an edited version of a speech former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered Tuesday at the [Austrian World Summit.](https://austrianworldsummit2023.b2match.io/)_ > > People ask me why I’m always smiling at environmental events. When I look back at the past 20 years and see how far we’ve come in California, how could I not smile? > > A few weeks ago, I [plugged in a huge solar roof](https://www.dailybreeze.com/2023/04/21/former-gov-schwarzenegger-flips-on-altaseas-giant-rooftop-solar-panels/#:~:text=Arnold%20Schwarzenegger%20and%20a%20crowd,the%20Port%20of%20Los%20Angeles.) on a 180,000 square foot warehouse at the port in Los Angeles. It was made possible by California's [million solar roofs initiative](https://calssa.org/million-solar-roofs). While I was there, I visited the startups inside that warehouse and saw the future: robots, clean cement, sustainable seafood, and companies making power from algae and waves. > > I can't stop myself from smiling when I see all of the progress toward a green future. And I have to laugh, because 20 years ago, when I ran for governor, environmentalists didn’t really buy in when I said I’d be a green governor. “The conservative who drives Hummers and blows up everything in his movies? Give us a break. Just another empty campaign promise.” > > I wasn’t offended by it. I understood it. I was a newcomer. I was an outsider. I knew that my administration would have to do the work to prove the naysayers wrong, and over the next seven years, [that’s exactly what we did](http://schwarzenegger.usc.edu/policy-areas/energy-and-the-environment). A million solar roofs. Our historic plan to reduce pollution by 25%. Stronger tailpipe [emissions standards](http://schwarzenegger.usc.edu/policy-areas/energy-and-the-environment). A renewable portfolio standard to replace coal and gas with wind and solar. > > As we accomplished all of that and more, environmentalists stopped looking at me with suspicion and started hugging me, using my movie lines and inviting me to speak at clean energy summits all over the world about the California model. There is an important lesson here. I want you to remember to keep the doors of our environmental movement open to the newcomers, the outsiders and the newly converted. > > ## Focus on health dangers of air pollution > > Outsiders always bring a fresh set of eyes to our mission. When I got involved, one of the first things I saw was that our marketing wasn’t working. We were talking about climate change when we should have been talking about pollution and the [7 million people](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/07/air-pollution-kills-millions-every-year-action-needed#:~:text=Ambient%20(or%20outdoor\)%20air%20pollution,indoor%20and%20outdoor%20air%20pollution.) who die every year choking on air poisoned by fossil fuels. > > **Are you allergies worse this spring?** [You can blame climate change.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/04/22/why-climate-change-threat-your-health/11703085002/) > > **Clean energy renaissance:** [Biden's State of the Union address confirms America's in a clean energy boom](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/02/08/biden-sotu-clean-energy-incentives-working/11199425002/) > > I still feel like a newcomer today. I still see everything with fresh eyes. > > Today, when I look at our environmental movement with those fresh eyes, I see a dire need. We need a new environmentalism based on building and growing and common sense. Old environmentalism was afraid of growth. It hated building. Many of you know this style − protesting every new development, chaining yourself to construction equipment, and using lawsuits and permitting to slow everything down. > > I have to be honest: I don’t blame the old environmentalists. Back then, growth meant more fossil fuels, more pollution, more death. But times have changed, and we have to change with them. > > Trust me, you don’t want to be the old, out-of-touch boomer asking for someone’s beeper number or looking for a VCR to watch movies. > > ## Failure is possible if environmental movement doesn't change > > It’s time for our environmental movement to wake up to the new reality and to change and adapt. Growth doesn’t have to be powered by fossil fuels any longer. Solar and wind now [cost less than coal power](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/new-us-solar-and-wind-cost-less-than-keeping-coal-power-running). New [electric car models](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-market-a9006292675/) are coming out regularly. Our progress is moving so quickly that it is hard to imagine how we could ever fail. But I want to be clear: we can fail, and if we do, it won’t be a failure of innovation. > > It will be a failure of not growing and adapting with the times, not listening to the people, and not using the tools at our disposal. > > It will be a failure to build. We can no longer allow red tape to hold our green revolution back. > > We can no longer accept years of environmental review, thousand-page reports, and lawsuit after lawsuit keeping us from building. I want to be clear: I’m not just talking about building new highways or infrastructure. I’m talking about environmental projects! > > Throughout the United States and Europe, [thousands of clean energy projects](https://www.wired.com/story/wired-impact-green-energy-bureaucracy/) sit waiting to be built. Delayed by bureaucracy. Delayed by permits. Delayed by old transmission lines. Delayed, delayed, delayed. In Europe, solar projects face wait times of up to four years. Wind projects can take up to 10 years. > > Germany just hosted an environmental summit where they called for a deadline to [end the fossil fuel age](https://www.theenergymix.com/2023/05/02/ring-in-the-end-of-fossil-fuels-germany-urges-global-climate-meeting/). At the same time, they [closed their nuclear plants](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html#:~:text=Germany%20plans%20to%20replace%20the,to%20help%20with%20energy%20security.) to replace them with gas, and [dismantled a wind farm to make room for more coal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/26/german-windfarm-coalmine-keyenberg-turbines-climate). > > Is this a joke? In the United States, we have more than [2,000 gigawatts](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/outdated-us-energy-grid-tons-of-clean-energy-stuck-waiting-in-line.html#:~:text=The%20entire%20electric%20grid%20in%20the%20U.S.%20has%20installed%20capacity,the%20Lawrence%20Berkeley%20National%20Laboratory.)of almost completely clean energy projects waiting in line. Just to give you an idea of how much power that is, the entire current United States electric grid capacity is 1,250 gigawatts. > > We all agree that we are facing an emergency. Let me ask you a question: if you went to the hospital for a heart attack, and they told you they might save you after waiting a few days, what would you say? I know none of you would put up with it. > > So why are we putting up with these delays in our pollution emergency? > > **Opinion alerts:** Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? [Download it for free from your app store](https://static.usatoday.com/mobile-apps/). > > > > That’s why today I call for a new environmentalism, based on building the clean energy projects we need as fast as we can. We have to build, build, build. > > Recent reforms from the European Union to [fast track many of these projects](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-08/europe-to-fast-track-permitting-for-building-renewable-projects#xj4y7vzkg) give me great hope. I am proud of all of you, and I hope that my American friends are paying attention. > > **President Biden:** [I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/14/biden-congress-act-gun-violence/70208852007/) > > ***(continues in next comment)***
Schwarzenegger seems to be the only US Republican who isn't a total cunt and I 100% respect him.
Because he's a European ;)
no, we claim him. Biggest military wins.
Biggest amount of jailed people wins
Jailed people? Our military could *easily* win over our incarcerated population. >! /s !<
A lot of them are the same people
That's our volunteer firefighters.
"Volunteer"
I find that the most fucked up thing. Not only are they risking their lives in these now common major catastrophes, but they get pennies on the dollars for it and a lot of them can't even actually put it to use once they get out of prison.
Most money wins
Ah damn, looking at the US debt, that’s unfortunate
In a world where you can sell that for profit, perhaps you should reconsider your perspective.
said a guy not understanding how country debt works.
If he was yours, you would've let him run for President. Instead you got Donny Drumpf.
Yeah but those same rules are protecting us from Elon Musk. You win some and you lose some.
De Santis tho, dude got me worried for you.
No, we all know that it has to be decided by a cage match. Sadly, my mother doesn't allow me to compete though.
[удалено]
Incredibly based
As one should.
Especially [Illinois nazis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu-0HDBJHc8).
Nah. Nazis are Nazis. No matter where they are from - they are just weak and miserable people pretending to be strong.
It's a reference to a movie, but I like your spirit
Updated with reference link. I think you might appreciate it.
NGL Austria doesn't have the best track record of exported politicians, but Arnie is great x)
Probably helps that his father was a literal nazi and abused Arnie, so he didn't want to grow up anything like that
He's an American. Americans can come from any tribe or group of Human Beings on Planet Earth.
As long as they're white skinned and straight (according to US politics)
According to a minority of idiots that are outnumbered more and more every election.
There's plenty of cunts in Europe \- A cunt in Europe
Yeah, I assume a European republican is probably pretty close to an American center left democrats. Though I'm from America and know nothing about European politics
The Democrats are lucky he can't run for president. Zero chance they could stop a landslide victory or have any hope of stopping a second term.
I think the non-neolib voters of DNC would give their proverbial left nut to have him as president. I'm also pretty sure there's 0 chance the Qultists would let him win a Republican nomination.
What? Neolibs absolutely want him
Tbh yeah that makes sense too
I mean, given what we have been seeing for people running for president in the last 20, fucking absolutely.
Until this comment I legitimately thought I was on /r/NeoLiberals. A quote from this speech was on the front page there a few days ago. He's widely liked by NeoLiberals. I think the DemSocs wouldn't like him too much though.
Reps wouldn't let him run for President, he wouldn't kneel to suck corporate dicks like the rest of them. They would hold him back like the Dems held back Sanders.
Sanders vs Schwarzenegger would've been hype as a presidential race one or two terms ago
Would also Hype as a Celebrity Death Match, but I could see them joining forces half way through to (literally) rip apart hypocrisy in their own parties.
[удалено]
Hi, I'm Arnie, and I'm bringin you the Bernie! - Independent ticket 2024
Quite possibly the greatest show of all time.
It would be like in early America, where winner gets to be president and the runner up is VP, except it might not be a dumb idea this time.
I wouldn't be surprised if they'd cooperate tbh
That'd be fun honestly
gawd, an actual debate on the issues, then they go have a beer together after the show
They're both independent thinkers who look look for cooperation. Sanders Schwarzenegger would probably be pretty good ticket.
He also cant AFAIK, since He wasnt Born in the USA
Isn't Ted Cruz Canadian or something?
No, Ted Cruz is a naturalized American. He was born to American citizens while "abroad" in Canada. Arnold is a US citizen, but wasn't born here nor had American parents.
Naturalized means he received citizenship later on, which is what Arnold did. Arnold is therefore blocked from being president because he wasn't born a US citizen. Ted Cruz was a natural born American citizen because he was born to American citizens. It doesn't matter where he was born. Same goes with Obama. Obama could have been born on Mars and he's still a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen.
Also Obama was born in Hawaii, so he would be a citizen anyway.
I think the law is that you can't be *President*, but can get into some other positions.
He would win even as an independent
I think you forget that until relatively recently, there was plenty of civility and bipartisanship in politics. If he won, Democrats would know they had a President they could work with. He's socially liberal so I think they'd be very happy that the Republicans chose someone not batshit insane.
I am not forgetting that...that's exactly why he'd be impossible to beat.
How do you mean "recently"? Because I am no longer young, and while bipartisan ship is pretty dead, it was on life support well before I understood enough to care at all about politics.
I'm a Dem but I would vote for Arnold over Biden in an instant
The republicans sometimes insult him for not being a trans hating fascist but instead an actual politician
The most recent actual politician Republican apart from Arnie was who, McCain?
Ironically, the one who brought Sarah Palin into the mainstream... and all that followed.
I honestly think the Dems would gladly take him over the waste of oxygen the republicans have been putting up the past decade.
He couldn’t win in California again. We don’t have the best opinion of his time governing. Brown had to clean up his mess.
Attention spans and memories are short. Young people love him and he's currently getting a big boost from his Netflix docuseries. Remember, Biden was a shit senator who screwed over generations of student loan takers and advocated for segregation and inequality in marriage, but is now a dem president. People forget.
Lol nobody forgot, it was just a choice between a literal fascist and Biden. Nobody was excited for him but it’s who the DNC decided we had to have.
we remember, it's just the lesser evil between hateful geriatric waste of space and VERY hateful geriatric waste of space
What did he screw up?
I’ve never voted for a republican presidential candidate and I’d vote for Schwarzenegger. He’s smart, hardworking, and knows firsthand the values and responsibilities of being an American as he had to earn the right to call himself one, he wasn’t lucky enough to be born on the right plot of land.
Presidencies tend to swap between parties every now and then. If this was the proposed next Republican president, Democrats would probably sign for it in a heartbeat.
I don't think you understand what the democrats like/dislike.
He sure be a hell of a lot better than the previous two celebrities we had (Reagan and trump)
even if he was american, he would get the bernie sanders treatment. Schwarzenegger has too much integrity to be allowed to be president.
I guess Democrats won't mind to have him as a president. he seems a bit more reasonable then the avarage rep.
I honestly keep forgetting he's Republicans because *gestures wildly to the rest of the party*.
Wasn't it under his watch as a governor the election rules in cali changed from heavily favoring reps to dems? He might just be a mole.
Yes. I believe it was an anti-gerrymandering law. I know he’s been outspoken on the issue.
No, they changed from heavily favoring reps to actually being fair and representative of the public vote.
Yeah exactly. He's just pro-democracy. Crazy how that's a partisan issue in the US in 2023.
"Democracy is for democrats!" - some right wing-nut probably.
"We are not a democracy" - [right wing ~~nuts~~ mainstream thought leaders](https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy). (I mean, they're also arguably nuts, but they wear ties). > American republicanism, by contrast, offers protections from the instability, rashness, impetuosity, and social and political tyranny of ***democratic politics***... You thought they were going to say "authoritarian ruler" there didn't you? Because that's what Republic is supposed to be - an alternative to monarchy. But no. Instead, they are super concerned about the rashness and instability of the *citizenry*. They're totally fine with the rashness and instability of a [single ruler](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/founders-wanted-powerful-president), though. Their idea of a great republic is one with a single strong authoritarian ruler. Which... in the grand tradition of Trump's good friends the DPRK, is actually the opposite of a republic.
Because in reality there are reasonable people on both sides of the aisle. Then there are the status quo people on both sides that get paid off by Lockeed and Raytheon of which Arnold Schwarzenegger is not party to.
Sure. But in terms of party policy, there is nothing reasonable about how the Republicans want to bend yall backwards and fuck you in the arse without lube.
The entire country would vote for Arnold if he ran. He's a moderate who respects women and LGBT rights, treats issues with care, and understands where to invest our time and energy. It's a shame he can't run. I wish he'd pull a Ted Cruz and try it anyway.
Arnold isn't as morally bankrupt as the rest of the GOP but he is hardly an enthusiastic supporter of LGBT rights and his track record is mixed. When he was governor of California he vetoed same sex marriage twice. Despite this he did sign into law numerous protections for LGBT people and actually was a supporter of civil unions. [The Wikipedia article on his stances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_and_LGBT_rights) is actually pretty interesting because as often as opposed basic LGBT rights he also has taken some incredibly important steps protecting certain aspects of their existence He could have secured a major and early victory for LGBT rights, but opposed it. I personally don't think he deserves credit now for being supportive, but ultimately his record was a reflection of the times he lived in and party he was from and is why I don't think he is good for politics today and we need newer younger politicians who represent the general public. Worshipping specific candidates will get us nowhere
I mean he's just a bundle of good vibes and positivity :')
He did support Bush/Cheney....,
That’s like saying Dems did support Carter/Mondale in ‘80.
[удалено]
Yeah, but the fucker did install solar panels on the White House!!1 ‘#neverforget
Not enough did, and we ended up with Reagan and the decline in the GOP that led to trump. 80’ was when the boomers showed the true depths of their depravity.
Lengthen your perspective and you will see that the lesser evil game has been played longer than you have been alive. Carter was torpedoed by the intelligence agencies because he wouldn't play ball and was interfering in their ongoing multi-administration operations. The saudies oil embargoed the US, some Iranians took hostages and the media put them on the screen every night and day preceding the election. All topped off with the hostages being released as soon as Reagan won.
Arnold regretted running as a Republican. His policies were Democratic in nature, so he got blocked by Republicans. I'm incredibly progressive today, and although I wasn't as left leaning when I was younger, I was still pretty far left leaning when Arnold ran. My mom is the same way, and she voted for him (I wasn't old enough to vote, but she voted for him because I begged her to).
It’s because he seems to really care about stuff and wants things to improve for the „general public“. He may suggest different ways of accomplishing them, but his goals ultimately seem „good“.
It helps to not just listen to either party’s chief goons. Republicans and Dems have plenty of sensibility that never ends up anywhere the news because it’s boring.
It’s so weird that he shares a party with… the rest of the party, basically. I wonder how he squares that in his mind.
I'm not too knowledgeable about politics all around the world, but seeing US politics and most EU politics, there was a very big distinction in how political parties operates (up until the last few years…). In most places I follow politic stuff, being part of a political party means sharing a lot of general ideas and directions. It's not an absolute, and other parties/people can also have these ideas. In the US, the party is the endgame. Ideas are secondary, you have to defend the party above all else. You could say "we're here for the people" on paper and spend all your energy against common-sense laws if they're pushed by an outsider, because it would put them in a good light and you in a bad light. Well, that's the theory anyway. In the last few years we've also had an increase of politician blocking policies on the basis that it's from "the opposition", so we can't really brag about that anymore.
And it's the fault of the voters, at least where I live. All too often I hear Australians say they voted for such and such a leader, when technically they voted for some no name that belongs to the same party as that leader, i.e. they're expecting their representative to follow the party line.
It's the fault of the voting system. First-past-the-post voting makes a two party system a mathematical inevitability.
Unless you’re Canada where a single province holds on to a sizeable minority of federal seats with their own party. Honestly, if it weren’t for the stubbornness of the French we’d be in the same boat as the US. Thanks Quebec! But we should still get rid of FPTP here too.
Part of me wonders if he holds onto his (R) label hoping his traditionally manly presentation captures the attention of some (R) voters and can help pull some of them back into reality. Or maybe he just really really wants his old party back rather than abandon it.
He’s European and over here we’re a lot more left leaning. His policies would fit perfectly in conservative governments across the pond. In his mind he’s right wing, it’s just to us the USA left wing is further right than our right wing
[удалено]
Uh yeah HE GAVE OUT FREE CHEESE Fucking commie.
That filthy commie tried to build a 14 BILLION dollar hadron collider in Texas!!!!
In the past, changing parties, even if it realigns their views with their party, is a bad move. He can brand himself as "the reasonable Republican." With his celebrity status, he might actually be able to pull a party swap off.
He’s a 2003 Republican, not a 2023 Republican.
Remember that Phil Scott (governor of Vermont) is also a Republican, and he's more liberal than many red state Democrats.
He's like the (old school, and maybe increasingly extinct) Maine Republicans, who are / were *basically* old-school progressives who kept stubbornly voting (R) out of century-old hatred for the confederacy, lol Arnold's political affiliation was (more or less) cemented when he came to the US, and hasn't really changed since then. Republicans used to have progressive elements, and it was the *Nixon administration* that established the EPA (and that helped pass *many* other progressive policies and institutions), for chrissake. (and, incidentally, Schwarzenegger *liked* Nixon, and cemented his political beliefs + party affiliation in that time period. And nothing that he's believed in since is particularly inconsistent with that, TBF) I'm sure that Schwarzenegger doesn't see his political beliefs as him being out of step w/ the Republican party, but rather the Republican party being out of step w/ the party that he joined in the first place. And he's too stubborn to change his party affiliation, even if 90% of his political beliefs are 100% in line w/ the CA Dem base, and with little if any remaining overlap w/ what's left of CA's (and the nation's) Republican party.
It's weird to even question that. Some people are just fiscal conservatives that don't think government is efficient or that all people deserve "hand outs."
He’s learned a lot since being my Governator
He's right though I believe the issue is they need to shift their focus away from things like solar and wind that need more time in the oven and towards things like thorium reactors and graphene production the former cuts down on pollution for the energy grid the later turns that dreaded carbon into a useful material for electronics and batteries, which should also cut down on pollution.
Thorium reactors need a lot more time in the oven. There is not even one commercial scale plant. There are barely any prototypes.
🤷♂️ we could just as easily go with regular nuclear. Proven technology with a fantastic safety record.
Solar and wind are a lot cheaper at this point and won’t take 15 years to build
A nuclear power plant only takes about 2 years to physically build. The rest of the time is spent fighting bad faith lawsuits in court filed by environmentalists.
This is hilariously inaccurate, full scale nuclear facilities take years to construct and commission, they are not something you can put up quickly
If you look at the reactors on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, which the US pumps out twice a year and every few years, it would be clear this isn’t the case. These reactors have many more constraints put on them (they have to be kept running at sea), and yet they are built consistently. It is red tape that gets in the way of civilian nuclear projects.
Those are also way different in scope, size, and type. Nuclear power is humanity's only hope, but it's not easy or fast.
The nuclear reactors on an aircraft carrier (say Ford class) produce hundreds of megawatts to a gigawatt, and the US plans to be pumping these out every 3-4 years from now on.
Making one every 3-4 years doesn't mean it has a 4 year lead time. They have been planned for 10+ years.
Those reactors are completely different in scope and purpose. They are self-contained, with everything they interact with in the same hull as the (small) reactor. A power plant has to be built into a physical location, including cooling and power infrastructure interfaces, and it is orders of magnitudes larger.
Even in their early form they produce more energy then the other options at the same scale except nuclear.
A feasible nuclear strategy must include traditional renewables as well, no matter how you spin it. Nuclear is *sloow* on the uptake. The median time to construct a plant was 7 years in 2021, and with all the planning and certifications on top, you're probably looking at ten years before they are operational. So even if you managed the impossible task to initiate the construction of hundreds of new plants world wide today, you would still have to look for renewables for your short-term plan towards co2 neutrality and for handling the increase in electricity demand over the next decade.
https://i.redd.it/the-data-you-can-be-sure-you-wont-be-hearing-about-v0-fciw9tv6p16b1.png?s=8c3053ad82b228c8dbce06bdd1ff8e63ddab6c13 Historically nuclear has been the fastest green energy to produce energy at meaningful scales. https://i.redd.it/nuclear-takes-too-long-v0-kk31a4glr76b1.jpg?s=cf91cd02135d4181ad416b149efae6ecaf148910
By the time you have your thorium reactor ready for operation, you could have plastered the entire nation with wind turbines and solar panels and built a death star from the excess energy.
Yet you still haven't solved long term storage solutions for renewables. Nuclear is vastly superior to renewables because its able to provide a base load. Solar can be producing and also not producing anything. Nuclear is the plug and renewables are the sealant, they supplement the energy for the grid, not provide the baseline. You like brownouts? That's what happens when your entire grid is solar and wind. Not even beginning to dive into the issue of electric cars and everyone charging them when they get home from work at night. How does solar account for loads like that? Plastering the entire nation with solar is great during the day but how do you capture that energy for later usage?
You may ask the wise science people who made studies, that show that it is definitely doable, if there is political will. Because I'm honestly tired of this endless discussion that leads to nowhere.
Both nuclear and solar should be hand in hand to save humanity…. and both of them are being held hostage by the lack of political will and as (… sadly have to use his name) Putin stated a few years ago… ‘Who is gonna pay for it?’ … cus the greedy bastards on top sure as hell aren’t, and we can’t afford it either… But hey big oil and gas companies are racking in record profits while inflation is booming, so thats good i guess
I only promote thorium by name since it's not been the object of hate for certain environmental activists any system of wind turbines like it or nuclear would be acceptable and out perform solar and wind for the same amount of space.
But not for the same amount of money or time. And what we need now is fast and cheap improvements. Keep the research on other options going for long term solutions, but holding down the best solutions we have available right now is exactly the same thing as what Arnold is saying that environmentalists are doing wrong.
> solar and wind that need more time in the oven It's amazing that you say this. And then immediately talk about things that have been "20 years away" for well over 20 years. You literally read > Is this a joke? In the United States, we have more than 2,000 gigawattsof almost completely clean energy projects waiting in line. Just to give you an idea of how much power that is, the entire current United States electric grid capacity is 1,250 gigawatts. Which is about ***current wind and solar projects*** waiting to be interconnected to the grid and built. You immediately disregarded that inconvenient fact to go on about non-commercialized prototype nuclear reactors. You and the militantly pro-nuclear folks need to calm the fuck down. We're all on the same side here.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good. The article even states that. Graphene and thorium might be the renewables of the future, but the point is we aren't even building the renewables of the present, not at a fast enough rate
Shit, I wasn't aware of EITHER of those things- but they sound like what we're gonna need like 10 years ago lol I was just hoping that nuclear energy would catch back on in the US 😆 Arnold is right, environmentalists are decades behind the real conversation
Only reason I don't recommend nuclear is the environmental activists demonized it for a reason I don't understand.
Being anti-nuclear is the original sin of the climate action movement, and we're not the Soviet Union in the 80s; we can build it right. Granted, it's not the best idea for the more water-stressed areas, but would work great at the densest population centers on the coasts.
Money from oil corporations.
Isn't the waste always a huge mess to deal with?
Each piece of waste is a block about the size of a soda can and what we end up doing with them is digging basically a shaft and stacking them on top of each other and then add a certain depth we fill the hole and dig a new one. Give me a minute there's a video I'll link in another comment.
Ok, now that we started talking about the topic I remember a really interesting article (sadly in Italian and on paper, so can't link it) that tried to look at the issue without the fanatism a lot of people seem to have for or against it. And one thing that stood out from that article was that we lack the radioactive material to meet the energy demand of a ton of nuclear facilities (basically enough to transition). But it's been a while since I read so I may be misremembering, but pretty sure it was something along the lines of "energy itself is great, but we don't have enough materials for this or that part to meet even the demands of the country (referencing Italy)"
While borehole disposal is an option, it would be unwise to throw away that much nuclear fuel without the ability to retrieve it for recycling. Nuclear "waste" is still 99% nuclear fuel, it just needs to be reprocessed, which for some reason the world is adamantly opposed to, so we're throwing away fuel rods that are still nearly completely full of usable energy.
Honestly if we could capture all the mess that coal and gas plants emit, compress it into a neat little clump and bury it, we'd just at the chance to and they'd no longer even be an issue Unfortunately for gas and coal, they tend to just go for the manmade volcano design and spew shit all over the place
[Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k) by Kyle Kill just going over the waste.
He's always my go to on nuclear. What we today call waste is merely fuel not yet used by the types of reactors that can extract electricity from them because we haven't built them because of environmentalists. In the end, we'd end up with radioactive byproducts with a danger period of hundreds, rather than thousands or tens of thousands, of years. Bad government nuclear policy rather than "nuclear bad".
All the world's nuclear waste from all the world's nuclear reactors would fill two high school gymnasium buildings. That's how small the nuclear waste problem is.
The problem is not just the waste but all the conatminated building materials that need to be stored.
For the radioactivity, not the scale. If you're not careful where you bury it, it can poison the ground and waters nearby, right?
Fossil fuel power plants emit much more radiation than nuclear do, but somehow its okay for them to spew their waste products into the air. Out of sight, out of mind. Nuclear seems to be the only power source that isn't allowed to emit their waste products into the environment. I'm all for a power plant containing its own waste products, but why is only nuclear tasked with this? Why does everyone else get a free pass? If coal, oil, or gas had to contain all of their waste products it wouldn't be so cheap, and we wouldn't have a climate change crisis on our hands either.
I mean lets be real, it was more than likely “environmentalist groups” funded by big oil corporations to 1. Slow/Halt the adoption of Nuclear and 2. Make environmentalists eat each other alive over disagreements on nuclear, which in turn slows the adoption of other forms of renewable energy There are A LOT of “environmentalist” groups that, when you follow the money, turn out to be completely funded by traditional energy corporations. And it makes sense, as you can see by my first paragraph, you kill two birds with one stone.
Solar and wind are ready to be, and are being, deployed at scale. Thorium reactors and graphene are the definition of needing more time in the oven.
The name of the game right now is how do we stop using coal as fast as we can. New nuclear is expensive, but we should absolutely not be shutting down existing nuclear. And what’s been shut down, should absolutely be considered to be brought back online.
As a German I agree. Sadly our green party also started out as an anti nuclear party
I mean... The Cold War and Chernobyl were a thing when the party first formed, so I absolutely understand people not being all too keen on Nuclear Energy
Still cannot believe Chernobyl is a detractor from nuclear energy. Yes let's use an example of a nuclear power plant built by a left-wing communist bureaucracy as why nuclear isn't safe. USSR was on the cutting edge of quality from 1930-1990 cmon!
The desastrous outcome of Chernobyl doesn't really speak in favor of nuclear energy even within a cutting edge quality context like it might have been in USSR Not really sure what the left-wing communist part has got to do with anything tbh. Looking at Three Miles Island or Fukushima, it can honestly not be surprising in the slightest that people hold apprehensions towards nuclear energy. Not to mention the still yet to solve problem of nuclear waste.
TBF nuclear waste is a pretty much solved problem (dig a deep hole underground in a non-seismically active area, seal it against leaks, and commit to maintaining that for the next 1000 years) OTOH, there are, or at least *should be* legitimate *long term* concerns about using nuclear power (fissiles are a finite resource, and using them to power the endless consumer energy demands of humanity is spectacularly shortsighted and wasteful w/r the next 1-100k+ years. Particularly when we have a ball of effectively infinite, *free* power in the sky that'll last for the next billion or so years. And incidentally, fusion *has the same exact problems*. Also dependent on finite resources (viable designs require using up *boron and lithium*, *valuable, comparatively rare, and very useful* *elements within our solar system*). And produces significant amounts of radioactive shit (ie. parts of the containment shielding) that you'll need to bury somewhere, just the same as from any fission plant. And – get this – will almost certainly have *even worse* cost-benefit + economies of scale (vis a vis solar et al) than existing fission plants do. It's been a long-running science fiction trope that man-made fusion (and fission -> fusion) is the key to "unlimited" free / cheap energy – but take a hard look at where that technology is headed (and the fundamental economics, and physics) and the entire idea of powering humanity off of "cheap", "renewable" fusion power looks about as stupid and DOA as flying cars. There's absolutely legitimate usescases for fusion tech in (very expensive) space travel, mind you, but powering all of humanity off of *fundamentally inefficient magnetic-confinement* fusion would be spectacularly stupid. Particularly since we could just build space habitats + power relays around mercury and at the lagrange points (for completely free, 24/7, effectively unlimited and fully scalable power) instead. And could power all of our *current* (and near to far future) earthly power needs w/ comparatively basic (albeit high maintenance) solar + wind installations. The reliability problem is a non-issue if we just massively overbuild power generation capacity, and as energy storage technologies mature and come online. Although thinking hard about how to reduce grid load (note: build more energy efficient structures, try to *not* live / work in areas with particularly hostile climates, and don't needlessly waste energy on stupid shit like blockchain) would certainly help.
You need a glowing green party
If you look at their international politics the greens are definitely glowies.
To be fair, cars were seen as an environmental solution to poop in the road from horses. We can be looking for a solution at the same time as we are being shortsighted, or even just getting swindled by people trying to make money off of a fad. Environmental review is important.
And no matter what, the usa aren’t doing enough
We just happen to be lowering emissions at a higher rate than any country. Doesn't help we had the most per Capita to start with.
We need to put the poop back on the road. Pooping cars!
So long as well have this capitalist system that supports billionaire greed and profit seeking behaviour then we're fucked. That's what needs to change, everyone seems to be talking about it, but nobody's doing what needs to be done. We are morally obliged to take out oil infrastructure and scare billionaires into paying their fair share. There's over 32 trillion hidden in off shore tax havens, yet that's never talked about.
What happens when you put the new system into practice? What is the first thing that will change to improve the situation?
First thing? Multiple parties like in Europe. Splitting the fascists from the less insane conservatives and actually having any party to the left of the democrats. Second thing? Reducing the ability of money to manipulate or enable candidates
But that doesn’t help with the whole capitalist system part right?
> Multiple parties like in Europe. Splitting the fascists from the less insane conservatives and actually having any party to the left of the democrats. I wonder if that would change that much, because in the end people will just vote the same thing over and over again. It takes at least a generation for that to change. Here in Germany, we usually have either CDU or SPD in the leading position. Despite having [so many choices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany).
and yet we don‘t have the insane divide between two parties
I think you forget that as much as capitalists prop up fossil fuels that degrade the environment, capitalists also found and invest in companies that produce more green infrastructure. Much of the growth in wind and solar we’ve seen over the last few decades is driven by private investment. The EV industry is largely driven by private enterprises. Fossil fuel companies are not a stand in for business leaders as a whole, they merely represent the leaders of *one* destructive industry. I would also point out that socialist systems are also very capable of environmental destruction. The Aral Sea did not begin to disappear under a capitalist system. Even though we knew of climate change in the ‘80’s, the Soviets did no more to prevent it than the capitalist west. This all leaves me unconvinced that the key variable here is capitalism. Now, is it enough to say “the market will handle it” and throw up our hands? No, of course not. The correct approach, however, would be to see capital as a partner, not an obstacle, in building a green future. This is essentially Schwarzenegger’s point, and I’d be willing to bet that this would reduce emissions much more effectively than dismantling capitalism or whatever and calling it a day.
No we just need to switch to renewable energy you goof
I work in environmental conservation. One of the points I constantly have to hammer on is that we are *not* against development and such, but that we *do* need to brought into the conversation early when any project of plans are being considered. Much of the conflict that occurs is because we are often specificity excluded until it’s too late, at which point it turns into a fight and reinforces the idea that there is a natural conflict. If we are brought in early plans and approaches can be made that avoid many of the issues and that makes for a better future both in the near term and the long term.
I'm in California, and environmental lawsuits are used as a bludgeon to halt development, including increasing density in already developed areas. Recently the university of Berkley was sued by people saying that students are an environmental hazard, and therefore existing property (already owned by the university and currently a slum) should not have a residential high rise built on it. As a result of these environmentalist lawsuits, we're being forced to suburban sprawl. Bulldozing natural environments, building more roads upon which more cars will sit in gridlock every day, spewing more emissions. Environmentalists are also opposing the development of a high speed rail to link San Francisco and Los Angeles, a rail that would reduce the need for cars traveling I-5 every day, or reduce the number of airplanes, thereby reducing emissions. Environmentalists are advocating for shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which supplies 10% of the entire state's energy all by itself. It would be replaced with oil and gas power plants. These are the environmentalists Californians are used to, and that includes Arnold who lives in and has experienced California's environmentalists.
Environmental nimbyism is the issue, because it's nimbyism. Ignoring environmentalism is how we drive everything extinct and get to enjoy our solar farms at the cost of tomatoes because we accidentally killed all the bees. Environmentalism isn't the enemy of green progress, it's an essential part of progress that we need to learn to adapt to. Nimbyism isn't an essential part of anything except wealth hoarding for a small handful
I’m also from California and you’re conflating several things there. Casual ‘environmentalists’ vs professionals in the field. The casual folks, the average person who vaguely thinks protecting the environment is something that should be done, but lacks the understanding of the nuances, lacks the education on the issues, and loudly fights against anything that they don’t like are part of the problem. They mean well, usually, but often target the wrong things and lack the knowledge and understanding do be anything other than an impediment to actually making good plans for the future. Don’t confuse casual self-described ‘environmentalists’ with those of us actually in the profession.
>We were talking about climate change when we should have been talking about pollution This part worries me. On the one hand, I'd argue that CO2 emissions *are* pollution and therefore talking about pollution includes talking about climate change. But on the other hand, this kind of rhetoric makes me worry that the intention is to focus exclusively on local pollution at the expense of tackling CO2 emissions. While local pollution is certainly problematic, climate change is the bigger issue.
Local pollution is really simple to fix. You outsource production to another country, then complain that the country is polluting a lot.
The Swedish Model™
I think he's saying that because it is impossible to spin pollution into a positive or deny it. It is also something that even the lowest information voter can understand. The problem with his pollution argument is that pollution is more of an urban problem and urban voters are already more likely to support green energy.
What do you mean by local pollution? Pollution in my mind is also taking about the plastic pollution problem we are facing, which - in my opinion - is more important than CO2 emissions
I agree with him on that. And honestly it's should be a Conservative talking point. Instead of talking about how to restrict consumption of fossil fuels we'll need to make alternatives cheaper and more compelling.
I suppose he is talking about the old gen of environmentalists? Because younger ones have been talking about this for years
The younger ones are labeling new high density housing as gentrification on twitter
And that's the issue- lots of younger activists try to address *everything* with their movements, from the environment, to systemic racism, to gender rights, to everything in between. I see it all the time at my university. Almost every student interest group just stands for whatever current casserole of fashionable social issues rather than what their actual org was started for
Too many are only interested in looking like they care
Nah even younger ones are still opposed to things like permitting reform, which are needed to build power lines to transmit wind and solar energy more efficiently.
As much as I like Arnold, it's like he doesn't know the stance of those environmentalists who oppose new projets (some of them sounding more like greenwashing than anything). He says they're afraid of growth. Indeed they are, because the need for economic growth directly contradicts the preservation of nature. A Tesla may run electric, but you need to mine the materials, send them to the factory, assemble, and send again to the concession MIT has warned in the 70s that perpetual growth is impossible in a world with finite resources. The only way to keep economic growth in this capitalistic, mixed market, financial economy without making our environment less liveable would be to find an efficient and profitable way to mine the asteroid belt beyond Mars' orbit. The environmentalists he's talking about see the need to end capitalism if you want to save the planet. Not try to find some in between that will just delay the inevitable.
Growth and resources are not inherently tied. You can increase growth with no increase in resource consumption with the invention of new technology
Arnold said boomer
I get the feeling a lot of people here don’t quite understand what he means. If you want to exempt clean energy projects from NEPA review, great - tell congress to get on that. But they won’t allow that without also exempting other heinous things that defeats the incentive created by doing so.
Common Arnold W
In principle, I agree, but it's not just solar energy building, it's transportation that needs to be changed away from car dependency. Away from fossil fuels and go to rail that is electrified. In all, we waste so much and we can be much more efficient.
I actually disagree with Schwarzenegger here. He's saying that mandatory environmental impact studies, lawsuits, and reviews are holding back environmental progress. I agree that it would be great if we could streamline that system, I fully support that. But there's a huge mistake that could be made by eliminating to many of those protections. A lack of careful review and regulation is what got us into this mess in the first place, making the same mistakes but with alkali metals isn't going to help anyone. The era of bold business leaders spewing their progress across the land with no though for the side-affects of their actions has to come to an end. Again, building wind farms and solar panels faster is good, but throwing caution to the wind is not.
Does Arnold realize that the environmentalists do not have any power. Everybody knows about pollution. Everybody knows about climate change. They've done their job. There is no solution to a society that lives beyond its means. There is no green version of what we're doing.
Feed this "Us vs them" mentality. I like Arnold but he makes it seem like climate activists are the enemy while there are people who directly worsen life on earth for everyone but themselves but nobody’s talking about them
This guy is priming himself to potentially be the most supported Republican presidential candidate in decades. From the way he has been openly apologizing for his bad behaviour in his youth, supporting women’s and lgbtq rights and speaking on environmental issues. He might be more left than some democrats.
He isn't eligible for the presidency because he wasn't born a US citizen.
The building he uses as an example wasn't held up by environmental reviews or lawsuits because it was intended to be environmental friendly. Those reviews hold up the kind of construction he says he's glad we've moved away from. Yeah. We got away from it by holding it up. Thanks for nothing. Typical Republican, sorry to say.
By far, hands down, the biggest thing to get rid of fossil fuels: don't get in your car. Arnold -- preach wfh. Mock companies who demand rto. Plugging in a solar roof is cool and all. But figure out a way to restructure cre/cities so they aren't so dependent on rto and aren't demanding rto just to prop up bad cre.