126

This is a broad topic, and for an overview I would suggest to look at the wikipedia article on the anti-nuclear movement. The main points are: accidents which pose a risk to humans and the environment (see Fukushima or Chernobyl). waste disposal: the problem of disposing nuclear waste long-term is still completely unsolved, and the waste poses a threat to ...


75

I think there are two main reasons. Ethics (which does apply to dogs in many parts of the world) and the fact that there aren't that many whales (as opposed to dogs). Ethics It's seen as immoral. This argument also applies to dogs (note, pictures may be disturbing). As such, you see a lot of outrage about dog consumption as well. For example, these ...


66

what international laws bar or place limits on how Brazil can use the Amazon keeping in mind the Brazilian government has jurisdiction over Brazilian land. There are no such international laws. A good answer by @Fizz notes that there are non-binding aspirational commitments in several international understandings to which Brazil is a party (which I will not ...


63

There is an ethical argument that hasn't been mentioned yet. Many people find whale hunting unethical (see JJJs excellent answer), despite supporting deer hunting and chicken farming, because we think whales are smart. There is a correlation between how intelligent an animal is (or we think it is), and how likely people are to oppose its hunt and ...


59

Both of your examples use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into fuel. They are cutting edge, meaning that they haven't yet been engineered into usable systems that people could buy. The proof of concept was only published in 2016 and 2017 for each. So, reasons: They don't actually exist in usable form (yet). It's not clear that we are better ...


48

According to Holman Jenkins in 2016, the answer is murky, not least because environmentalists are not unified against nuclear: Honest greens have always said nuclear power is indispensable for achieving big carbon reduction. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been chaining himself to fences since the first Bush administration, was in Illinois ...


47

One undiscussed reason that Japanese whaling is so specifically opposed by certain nations (specifically New Zealand & Australia) is that much of the Japanese whaling happens in the Southern Ocean, near these countries but very far away from Japan. Part of the national self-image of these countries is that of custodians of the environment; New Zealand's ...


43

The whole point of these "New X Deal"s is to unite the party proposing it, pick up some outside support, and put the other party in a weak position if they oppose it. If there's some kind of seam in popular support for bits of it, you want that seam to be in the other party, not in yours. For Democrats, putting nuclear power in there would not do that. ...


36

No. The U.S. military claims sovereign immunity and also has express exemptions from many (but not all) U.S. environmental laws. The local courts have no practical authority over the U.S. military forces and U.S. courts would not generally entertain a lawsuit to enforce foreign environmental laws against the U.S. military. Usually, when U.S. forces are based ...


35

International laws don't prevent anything unless you're interested in having a war to back them up.


33

tl;dr- Recycling CO2 at the scale that we're producing it's pretty expensive. Sure, we can technically do it, but it'd have to be cheaper than just switching to clean technologies to be worthwhile. It's a technical issue rather than a political one. First, CO2 does have some industrial uses. For example, it's useful in carbonating soft drinks — though we ...


30

Same way CFC problem was addressed. As you will notice if you look at the detail of the issue (e.g., this blog post - which is overall very pro-regulation and pro-environmentalism and aggressively anti-free-market), CFC regulation by the government happened after the CFC market shrunk more than 75% already. In other words, 75% of the problem was solved by ...


29

There is no reliably humane way to kill whales according to the New Zealand government. The article starts with the statement: "Experience has shown that it is very difficult to kill a whale at sea humanely; that is, by causing minimum pain or instantaneous death."


29

I would disagree with your initial statement "Many cultural cuisines like rabbits, cows, trout, pigs, chicken, reindeer or walruses are consumed without international criticism", at least in spirit. There are protests, within and across national boarders, about the hunting or eating of certain groups of animals, including those in your list. Cows are farmed,...


25

If someone was concerned about this impact (and no generous billionaires step up to fix it out of the goodness of their hearts) they'd first need to be able to quantify and qualify said impact in a way in which it can be attributable to individual sources. They'd have to fund that research themselves, with few hopes of an ROI for their labor. Once they could ...


23

It depends on what you consider good and bad. If your only concern is greenshouse-gas emissions, then nuclear is indeed good. Yet, nuclear energy brings along problems of its own, e.g. nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, etc. These, are the main reasons why many proponents of green energy dismiss nuclear energy. If something goes wrong in a wind-park, then ...


21

The simple answer is nothing. These climate accords aren't worth the paper they're printed on. A lot of that has to do with the fact that people wanted something on paper, even if it was meaningless (note that this is talking about the Lima conference that preceded Paris, and that the same basis was used there) The strength of the accord — the fact that it ...


21

It's easier (and more energy efficient) to produce less CO2 than to make it and then try to capture it and break it apart. Rather than use solar energy to break CO2 apart, you could use that same solar energy to replace fossil fuel, and you'd get more energy out of it. It takes more energy to break CO2 apart than you get out of burning carbon to produce ...


21

This from an unpublished/draft paper, but I'm quoting it anyway because it seems to be one of the few actual surveys on why [some] voters actually oppose such a measure, in France at least: their perception about the properties of the tax are largely biased: people overestimate the negative impact on their purchasing power, wrongly think the scheme is ...


21

There is an 1978 Amazon Cooperation Treaty but its wording on the matter is so vague and aspirational that it could hardly constitute any kind of firm commitment to concrete objectives: “achieve also the preservation of the environment, and the conservation and rational utilization of the natural resources of those territories.” It is basically a "...


20

Military occupiers aren't bound by the rules of the nation they're occupying. So, let's look at the realpolitik of the situation of military occupations, for a moment. If someone sends an army into your country to occupy it, it's an act of war, and governed by the laws of war in international law. Once that war's over, and they've successfully occupied your ...


19

The production of carbon is a negative externality. It's a cost of production that is spread very thin (to the entire world essentially), instead of being paid for by the producer of the carbon generating process. Taxes can attempt to account for this and ideally redistribute the money to address the people affected. Regulations can raise the cost of ...


19

The environmental movement was initially opposed to nuclear power, partially due to it being tied to nuclear war (Chernobyl was a weapons grade Plutonium reactor), and partially due to the risks involved (this well predated Climate Change being the top concern). These fears would be exacerbated in 1979 by the Three Mile island accident, and the movie The ...


15

In general, a sovereign state can regulate what is or isn't allowed within its borders in any way it wants - that is a part of the whole "sovereignty" thing. But international agreements and organisations can influence what an independent state is actually willing to do. WTO is one such organisation. It can't actually do anything but expel a member ...


13

Because the “Green New Deal” is not a comprehensive energy policy, but a resolution to state the intent to create a policy (or policies) sometime in the future The explanation is right in the first sentence of the resolution you linked (emphasis added): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. The thing you called “the ...


13

Yes, this is possible. Emission allowances under the Emission Trading Scheme can be cancelled, and some organizations have done what you suggest in your question. Most prominently, from 2008 to 2017, the non-profit Sandbag (now renamed Ember) ran a "Carbon Destruction" service, which allowed members of the public and businesses to put money towards ...


12

The environmental impact report is 1200 pages long and I don't have a plan on reading it, so please take this answer with a grain of salt. That being said, I do want to show that, at least to a layman, when you run the numbers there does not immediately appear to be a huge risk. First lets look at how bad Sunco is comparatively. From your article: Sunoco ...


12

I'm only going to try to cover things that haven't been mentioned in other answers and try to preempt any begging of the question that might come. There are environmental and practical concerns to eating certain animals that don't apply to the same degree as other animals. For example, pretty much all meat provided by domesticated animals come from prey ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible