And what would that lesson be? The people who fought nuclear for decades caused as much damage to the climate as the interim coal companies because that is who supplied the power instead.
If you are interested go to their website and read what they have to say about nuclear. Climate activists do not advocate for coal and most likely live in such a way that they cause less damage to the climate than the average person, including you.
You skipped over my point. I think the activists let perfection get in the way of progress. I know that they’re not advocating for coal, but by fighting nuclear they left no other scalable solution other than coal. Nuclear doesn’t have to be a forever solution, but it’s a perfect stop gap in the meantime.
Surely these activists contributed to progress on some other, smaller sources of renewable energy, but at the cost of decades of record breaking greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear could have put a halt to many if not most coal and natural gas plants until other sources of renewable energy improve and have time to get built out.
A perfect stop gap in the meantime is not a solution. Remember that coal as a piece of rock it’s not a problem, the problem is caused by society relying on burning coal to satisfy its frivolous consumes. The climate crisis is not caused by activists fighting against it. Renewables could have put a halt to polluting energy the same way you claim nuclear would have, with the difference that it would have been even better because nuclear comes with other issues.
I agree with that, and I’m glad to see true clean renewables becoming a larger percentage of our energy use, but it has just been disappointingly slow.
If we’d ignored the FUD and gone nuclear 70 years ago climate change would be nothing more than an interesting “what if”. I guess Greenpeace won if their goal was to make it an imminent existential threat. Good job I guess.
If we’d gone with green energy 70 years ago climate change wouldn’t be nothing either, and we wouldn’t have to worry about nuclear power plants issues. Greenpeace has always been advocating for this
Sounds like young activist has something to learn from these who have been fighting for climate for decades
And what would that lesson be? The people who fought nuclear for decades caused as much damage to the climate as the interim coal companies because that is who supplied the power instead.
If you are interested go to their website and read what they have to say about nuclear. Climate activists do not advocate for coal and most likely live in such a way that they cause less damage to the climate than the average person, including you.
You skipped over my point. I think the activists let perfection get in the way of progress. I know that they’re not advocating for coal, but by fighting nuclear they left no other scalable solution other than coal. Nuclear doesn’t have to be a forever solution, but it’s a perfect stop gap in the meantime.
Surely these activists contributed to progress on some other, smaller sources of renewable energy, but at the cost of decades of record breaking greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear could have put a halt to many if not most coal and natural gas plants until other sources of renewable energy improve and have time to get built out.
A perfect stop gap in the meantime is not a solution. Remember that coal as a piece of rock it’s not a problem, the problem is caused by society relying on burning coal to satisfy its frivolous consumes. The climate crisis is not caused by activists fighting against it. Renewables could have put a halt to polluting energy the same way you claim nuclear would have, with the difference that it would have been even better because nuclear comes with other issues.
I agree with that, and I’m glad to see true clean renewables becoming a larger percentage of our energy use, but it has just been disappointingly slow.
If we’d ignored the FUD and gone nuclear 70 years ago climate change would be nothing more than an interesting “what if”. I guess Greenpeace won if their goal was to make it an imminent existential threat. Good job I guess.
If we’d gone with green energy 70 years ago climate change wouldn’t be nothing either, and we wouldn’t have to worry about nuclear power plants issues. Greenpeace has always been advocating for this
By fighting nuclear they were advocating against green energy.
Nuclear is not green
Why not?