3 ms·
My reasoning says we have a few thousand tonnes of solid radioactive waste and a few tens of billions of tonnes of gaseous fossil waste that is wreaking havoc p
by yodelshady 6y ago
My reasoning says we have a few thousand tonnes of solid radioactive waste and a few tens of billions of tonnes of gaseous fossil waste that is wreaking havoc planetwide.
California alone, THIS YEAR alone, has lost an area 3 times the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone due to weather that should be unusual, but won't be. Australia likewise. Forests near me have been lost due to parasites who should be killed by a frost that never came. This is the new normal. This doesn't end.
Those were the two options, and you knew it. Sorry but my life has been stories of people who claim to be environmental and frustrate every single practical effort to reduce emissions, then claim ignorance of the consequences.
You knew.
- coldtea 6y agoSorry, but there's a third option: reduce production and consumption (no quick fashion, more durable products, right to repair, penalty on constant ads, etc.), reduce needless transport (e.g. work from home, cut down tourism industry, cut down useless imports/exports, etc.), scale down population growth (this is already happening), and so on. Unless we curb the endless growth mindset, the world will become a dumpster full of garbage anyway, regardless of the energy source. And cheapo power will only encourage "more of the same".