Not many engineers, natural scientists and economists support greens.
Not many engineers or natural scientists support the neoconservatives either. In fact, ungineers tend to by systematic rather than empathetic, and so are largely politically invisible. I'd argue that the greens actually have a bigger share of them, but that engineers especially tend to vote pragmatically, which in nonproportianal systems means voting for a major party (ie, not a green one). To say that members of those groups aren't green I think is to seriously misunderstand how things work, and leads naturally to your statement:
unable to produce real and working solutions to environmental problems
Where do you think those solutions come from? Magic pixies? Sorry, economists? I'd argue that many problems originate with lawyers and accountants, and are dumped on engineers to solve. But that's a whole 'nother argument.
...there is no comparison with nuclear power. From a purely technical standpoint it beats every other existing technology hands down.
Except for radioactive waste, which no-one has yet come up with a solution to other than waiting until it breaks down of its own accord. Even in dollar terms, they fail. If you could point to even one economically viable nuclear power plant anywhere in the world I'd be impressed, because as far as I've been able to find out, there are none. And that's without including the clean-up costs which in themselves poke a glaring hole in the operation of capitalism (the bankruptcy one).
Even supposedly ultra-clean stuff like solar cells consume non-renewable raw materials and quite a bit of energy to be produced.
The non-renewables are tiny (trace amounts of silicon dopant), and the energy payback is these days only a few years. I agree that they're not really viable major source, but neither is nuclear once you think about periods longer than the working life of the individual plant.
The Green Solution is a combination of reduced demand and optimising the current system. There are so many small things that can be done that have dramatic effects that it's surprising that more of them don't just happen. Sydney (Australia) is currently in yet another water shortage, and it looks as though the govt is finally going to get serious about reducing demand via propaganda ("don't water your driveway" type ad campaigns) and things like rainwater tanks.
Maybe it's just who I hang out with, but I know a lot of practical types who are working on this stuff, many of whom are starting to work with socially focussed people ("people people") in order to get change on a society-wide level rather than just one person at a time.
There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]