What is the E & E group's SOP?

[freshwest]

By definition, 'This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.'

When I clicked to find it, it seemed vague to me, not taking any position, 'Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy.'

Will a series of positions be advocated on the best way preserve life or the environment?

Has it been decided which views will or will not enjoy a 'safe haven' at E & E?

I am supportive of traditional liberal goals, protecting habitat, species, fighting pollution of all kinds through governmental regulation.

How will I know if my viewpoints will violate the SOP of this group?

That's all I'm asking, just joined today to check our environmental news stories, hopefully find new ideas on saving the planet.

[XemaSab]

1. We've got a big umbrella here

The only "purity test" that has been discussed is banning climate change deniers from the group, but it's looking like we're going to go in the direction of allowing them to stay too.

Note well that (as in other areas of the DU) freedom of speech does not mean that other people cannot argue with you.

I can't speak for the other hosts, but I trust people to have enough common sense to know whether or not a thread fits under the SOP.

[XemaSab]

12. We also have people who think that their opinion is the only reasonable opinion

and their expertise is the only valid expertise.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. No, it's standing as it is.

The hosts have been toying with the idea of restricting global warming deniers, but we're split so it's still "all aboard".

Needless to say, this give us a huge remit and the arguments can be truly epic.

[pscot]

11. It would be a shame to exclude the deniers

What's a sundae without nuts?

[joshcryer]

3. I would be fine with letting deniers stick around, however...

...if they start disrupting by posting anti-science garbage over and over again, I will be increasingly tired of the abuse, and I would hope the Hosts take such a case to heart, if it happens.

Usually though I don't have an issue with deniers here, they let me practice new debate techniques.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. What’s the point in “preaching to the converted?”

I think we’ve succeeded in getting some “skeptics” to at least consider that the climate scientists might be right after all.

Perhaps I’m just a hopeless optimist.

[joshcryer]

5. I've yet to encounter that here, to my recollection.

They come with their biases and won't let them go.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. That's the main reason for my opposition to excluding them...

There are a lot of folk who just don't know the science: Telling them to fuck off as soon as they get in the door doesn't seem like the best way forward to me.

[XemaSab]

8. There's at least one person who comes here to troll

and if I see him piddling on our nice new carpet then Skinner's getting a PM.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Yeah, but he's cute

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Personally, I think we’re more of a forum than a group.

It’s not as if we’re a persecuted minority here.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/news/the-climate-note-treatysupport/

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Climate Note: Do Americans support an international treaty on climate change?[/font]
December 11, 2011
[font size=3]On December 11 at the Durban (South Africa) Conference on Climate Change, the world agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol and begin negotiations on a new global treaty that will require all countries (developed and developing) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

In a national survey completed in November 2011, we found that a large majority of Americans (66%) support signing an international treaty requiring the US to cut emissions 90% by 2050:


Breaking the result down by political party (among registered voters), we found that large majorities of Democrats (81%) and Independents support such a treaty (61%), while almost half of Republicans support such a treaty (49%).



Source: Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies in November 2011
[/font]
[/font]

[kristopher]

10. While we agree on the need to address climate change

There is clear dysfunction introduced by the way we can't progress beyond arguing about nuclear power.

A small minority of progressives want more nuclear power while most do not. Yet here we are forced into a situation with defacto acceptance of the minority position, or constant squabbling that ruins the group as a place for like minded people.

Changes in opposition to building new reactors in selected countries:
Country 2005 survey - 2011 survey

Germany 2005 73% - 2011 90%

France 2005 66% - 2011 83%

Russia 2005 61% - 2011 83%

Japan 2006 76% - 2011 84%.

And in the US?

Opposition is not merely a not-in-my-back-yard phenomenon. The survey, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 67 percent of Americans oppose construction of a nuclear plant within 50 miles of their home – not significantly different than the number who oppose it regardless of location.

Resistance is bipartisan, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike opposed to new nuclear plant construction. Still there are differences among groups; is higher among Democrats (75 percent, vs. 59 percent of Republicans and independents combined), women (73 percent, vs. 53 percent of men) and liberals (74 percent, vs. 60 percent of moderates and conservatives).

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1122a3%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf

Maybe the OP is asking exactly the right question. What ARE we doing here? I'm certainly not looking constant arguments and bickering, but it seems that is the only option unless I concede that nuclear power is not subject to criticism.