Skip navigation
5comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Jennifer Perron

Jun 9, 2015
08:41

Member


1 |
Share via:
Hi Rezwan, Thanks for your proposal to the Climate CoLab. I'm one of the catalysts helping to provide comments and feedback to proposals, in an effort to help strengthen them. Interesting idea... these Living Room Conversations. Good job providing an introductory hook to help draw in the reader, and engage potential participants. It's nice that's there's already a website up and running to showcase the idea. A few ideas to potentially strengthen your proposal: 1. Who is the target audience for the project? Would you envision attempting to get industry (renewables and nuclear) involved, or is this more geared toward public perceptions of those industries? Who specifically is it that you think needs to begin engaging in a more constructive dialogue? 2. How might you define or begin to shape contours for outcomes of these discussions? What sorts of outcomes might better engage the public in this issue? 3. Fill out the "impact" section which attempts to assess how your proposal would tangibly impact GHG emissions. How would you envision these dialogues concretely linking to emissions reductions? 4. Add reference citations and embed the links in the thread in the reference section. Also provide a link to your Living Room Conversations website in the reference section.

Rezwan Razani

Jun 10, 2015
01:30

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks JPerron! How fun to be catalyzed. Quick question: "Living Room Conversations (LRC)" isn't mine. Is it OK to refer to them in the application? LRC is an independent organization that wants the world to start having more conversations. My twist is to add some language to their boilerplate "energy" conversation to make it about nuclear + renewable (their conversation at present is about denial of climate change). I will send an email to the founder of LRC to make sure they're OK with this proposal on Climate Colab, otherwise I will have to use a generic name, like "exploratory conversation" or something. But I am also trying to raise awareness for their organization because I think everyone LRC's about multiple topics should become the norm. Thanks again, now to complete the application. Best regards, Rezwan

Stevie Harison

Jun 12, 2015
04:52

Catalyst


3 |
Share via:
Hello from Indonesia, Good luck for your project proposal. Just review and make it completed before meet deadline tomorrow. Thank you,

Bill Schutt

Jun 15, 2015
08:32

Member


4 |
Share via:
The problem is not the case of pro-nuclear vs pro-renewable. It's the case of pro-nuclear versus doctrinaire anti-nukes. The anti-nuclear ideology has become to the modern Greens a fundamental tenet of belief and is quasi-religious. If I were to join the Catholic Church and reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would be excommunicated for heresy. And if I were to join the Green Party and reject their doctrinaire certainty on nuclear energy, I would equally be excommunicated for heresy. Some of these people have been anti-nuke for 40 years & given the choice of: - 1. I admit that I must be wrong because of the weight of opinions of the experts, or 2. The experts are wrong, and therefore MUST be part of a conspiracy, the human mind nearly always chooses 2 above. Helen Caldicott believes in a mass cover-up – “The World Health Organization is now part of the conspiracy and the cover-up. This is the biggest medical conspiracy & cover-up in the history of medicine." Cindy Folkers says she has “uncovered a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the government and nuclear industry to intentionally poison the public with radioactive food with the goal of making contaminated food acceptable.” Arnie Gundersen states on his website “world governments continue to cover-up the true magnitude of this disaster, and the mainstream media ignores it”. Christopher Busby claims “the Japanese government is deliberately spreading radioactive material from Fukushima all over Japan.”

Dennis Peterson

Jun 16, 2015
02:01

Member


5 |
Share via:
I've spent some time as an active member of my local Green Party. It's true that many people in the party are anti-nuclear, but not all. One of our members is actually a nuclear engineer. Another is against conventional nuclear, but thought molten salt reactors sounded pretty good when I described them to him. So while it's true that some prominent voices won't budge, I'm not convinced that's the case for the rank and file. And likely the general public is more fertile ground than that.