Environmental consequences of a 'soviet victory in the cold war' scenario

Eurocommunism probably has to have a pod way sooner than Vietnam I'm afraid. Certainly the more technologically advanced a country is the easier data is gathered and processed and a central government can make better decisions. But that's central planning and not the sort of worker commune communism that was usually popular in Europe

So you think western europe would remain capitalist. Hm...interresting, lets go over this topic again, but not on this thread.

Lets remain with western europe falling to soviet communism.

What about nuclear energy? In OTL the soviets were rather big fans of it. But the cold war victory, and changing times, maybe a nuclear catastrophe (an alternate one, Chernobyl never happened here) may change their oppinion. And what comes then? Sustainable energy? Revival of fosil energy?
 
So you think western europe would remain capitalist. Hm...interresting, lets go over this topic again, but not on this thread.

Lets remain with western europe falling to soviet communism.

What about nuclear energy? In OTL the soviets were rather big fans of it. But the cold war victory, and changing times, maybe a nuclear catastrophe (an alternate one, Chernobyl never happened here) may change their oppinion. And what comes then? Sustainable energy? Revival of fosil energy?
French technology in nuclear reactors means the Soviets could update their nuclear-loving. Considering France still uses and makes nuclear reactors to this day (and gets a foothold with ITER into fusion reactors)
 

MrP

Banned
On the other hand, a socialist nation can change to sustainable energy much faster than a capitalist one (the party just has to decide it, while in capitalism, you have to wait untill every big company has switched on their own).
This is a common misunderstanding of how Soviet-style governance worked in practice. Taking a decision was much more complex than "the Party decides it": there were powerful sectorial interests--in this case in the heavy industrial sector--who needed to be involved every step of the way, and who, if dissatisfied with the final decision, had enough leverage to sabotage its implementation or ignore it altogether.
 
This is a common misunderstanding of how Soviet-style governance worked in practice. Taking a decision was much more complex than "the Party decides it": there were powerful sectorial interests--in this case in the heavy industrial sector--who needed to be involved every step of the way, and who, if dissatisfied with the final decision, had enough leverage to sabotage its implementation or ignore it altogether.

Well of course there were big setorial interests, but if Central Commitee decided something and the Supreme Soviet made it law, there was not much you could do. If you refused such decision, you would loose your position, and someone else would be put in, who did it. Now, of course the party was split on every topic. But its much easier to solve such matters in the supreme soviet, than on the capitalist market, where certain corporations HAVE the power to just refuse to implement change. And yes, capitalist governments can make environmental laws. But the same corporations can just ignore it.
 
Top