Finnish Ecomodernists marching for climate solutions

The unpublished notebooks of J. M. Korhonen

12301565_10206223057196715_9159852688612747975_n Helsinki Climate March, 29th Nov 2015. Photo (c) Meela Leino. One Ecomodernist banner is visible on the right; another one was attacked, unfortunately.

12243281_10153168937041957_2261654246787965770_n Ecomodernists on the move. ”Lisää ydinvoimaa” = ”More nuclear power.” Photo (c) Meri-Tuuli Lauranto

Last Sunday, members of the Finnish Ecomodernist Society participated in the worldwide Climate March in Helsinki. This was probably the first time ecomodernists took part in a demonstration, and as such, a historical moment.

The ecomodernist message is clear: we need all the options at our disposal to stave off the climate crisis. This means, among other things, support for all low-carbon forms of energy, including nuclear power. With the future of our one habitable planet at risk, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Even though renewable energy is showing great promise, it and energy efficiency alone may not be enough. At minimum, we need an insurance policy, a ”plan B,” in case the great…

View original post 454 more words

One thought on “Finnish Ecomodernists marching for climate solutions

  1. Being an environment friendly conservative is a pain. There is no way one can support environmental protection organisations without effectively supporting traditional Green or even left wing opinions. WWF, SLL, FoE, Greenpeace, Animalia, etc are all heavily infected by people who are anti GMO, anti nuclear, and pro all political ideas which belong to the left. Enginees who solve problems are so cynical that they can’t vote for ’progressives’, or support activist groups lefties have infiltrated.

    I’d go nuclear even though I don’t agree the ’climate problem’ is vast. In fact, the climate (non)problem is so hardly noticeable that it cannot provide a talking point to energy discussion. It’s more like if you insist it is a risk, then you – not me – logically must go for nuclear.

    The nonvastness of global warming is beyond this small post, I just refer to papers which calculate warming benefits and end up in mildly positive numbers for a long time in future. Also the sensitivity estimate to CO2 has been coming down in scientific literature. So the scientific consensus is CO2 causes some pressure to warming and the exact results are still unknown, but not totally negative. Stories about Antarctic collapse or Greenland ice sheet sliding to ocean are plain laughable. We have AGW, we do not have catastrophic GW. But we have good storyboards for movies.

    In my opinion, we need nuclear power development for reducing dependency on oil. Nuclear power could stop a huge flow of money from west to Saudi Arabia, one of the most disgusting theocracies in the world. It could also provide energy to desalinate water for peoples in middle east and africa thus providing opportunity for better life and agricultural production at dry regions – and AC of course, the single best peacemaker. Of course security measures are needed – Al Qaeda like groups need to be crushed since they would happily take humanity back to stone age.



Täytä tietosi alle tai klikkaa kuvaketta kirjautuaksesi sisään:

Olet kommentoimassa -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )

Google photo

Olet kommentoimassa Google -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )


Olet kommentoimassa Twitter -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )


Olet kommentoimassa Facebook -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )

Muodostetaan yhteyttä palveluun %s