4 ms·

I've noticed a lot of nuclear advocates talking about climate change but having a poor grasp of the actual issues involved. The aim isn't the unrealistic goal o

I've noticed a lot of nuclear advocates talking about climate change but having a poor grasp of the actual issues involved. The aim isn't the unrealistic goal of going to zero emissions, it's to cut emissions such that carbon ppm stays below 450 (or 350, if we had acted sooner). If you look at serious comprehensive plans to fight climate change, nuclear doesn't play a big role for a variety of reasons (time to build, cost, production bottlenecks, etc.). Conservation usually plays a much bigger role (as do renewables). People blame environmentalists, but nuclear fans acting like nuclear is the one and only silver bullet while ignoring much more important components hasn't helped the fight against climate change.

realreality 8y ago
The goal is zero emissions, as soon as possible. The IPCC assumes we’ll have to have negative emissions, into the indefinite future.
- strainer 8y ago
  The goal is not a certain level of emissions, as you say - negative emissions would be desirable. A 50% reduction will be a great improvement, a 90% reduction will be almost as good as 100%. 110% even better... Our task is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. But what is "possible" still entails economic, environmental and safety limitations and priorities.
  - realreality 8y ago
    There is a carbon budget that countries have agreed to (though the budget is too optimistic, and countries aren’t really committed to it). Either we stick to the agreements we made, or we keep doing whatever we feel like doing.
    - strainer 8y ago
      The UK's agreed carbon budget is to achieve 80% reduction by 2050, and the US administration is no longer even officially interested in its own. Those agreements are bust on their own terms never mind the idea of zero emissions. Don't over rate their importance, we should and can do much better, much quicker.

realreality 8y ago

The goal is zero emissions, as soon as possible. The IPCC assumes we’ll have to have negative emissions, into the indefinite future.

strainer 8y ago
The goal is not a certain level of emissions, as you say - negative emissions would be desirable. A 50% reduction will be a great improvement, a 90% reduction will be almost as good as 100%. 110% even better... Our task is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. But what is "possible" still entails economic, environmental and safety limitations and priorities.
- realreality 8y ago
  There is a carbon budget that countries have agreed to (though the budget is too optimistic, and countries aren’t really committed to it). Either we stick to the agreements we made, or we keep doing whatever we feel like doing.
  - strainer 8y ago
    The UK's agreed carbon budget is to achieve 80% reduction by 2050, and the US administration is no longer even officially interested in its own. Those agreements are bust on their own terms never mind the idea of zero emissions. Don't over rate their importance, we should and can do much better, much quicker.