5 ms·

I posted the most politically neutral source I could find in a short time. There are plenty of other sources (including Kery's wikipedia page) describing his tr

I posted the most politically neutral source I could find in a short time. There are plenty of other sources (including Kery's wikipedia page) describing his track record on nuclear. I very much respect that he publicly claimed to have changed his position. Still, given the climate situation we are in, the importance of his new position and the overwhelming consensus between specialists that we need a 0 carbon mix of renewables + storage + nuclear, he should not have been even considered for this job because of his track record on the subject. Had we (US) adopted nuclear like France did decades ago we would be on track for most if not all carbon emission goals.

uberman 6y ago
I'm a little confused. A search for Kerry and nuclear energy has pages of hits, most top hits highlighting his current thinking and his change of heart. Yet your "most politically neutral source" is a report from a lobbyist for the nuclear industry? According to the charity watcher guidestar (and SCGI itself): "SCGIs continuing updates and education about advanced nuclear power systems, nuclear waste solutions, and little-known nuclear projects around the world has helped nuclear-friendly members of Congress clarify the essential role of this technology in responding to climate change" https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-4258384 https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-4258384 (Note, guidestar is just parroting back what SCGI told the IRS) I don't care about Kerry in the slightest, but don't come here with a 120k word essay on nuclear energy from a lobbyist that has a 40 word aside about Kerry and try to claim you just happened to stumble upon some "politically neutral" damning evidence. Please take the political stuff to some other forum.