3 ms·
> it's worth considering the arguments of people like Michael Shellenberger I'm sympathetic to the argument for nuclear energy as part of the answer to global
by jbotz 6y ago
> it's worth considering the arguments of people like Michael Shellenberger
I'm sympathetic to the argument for nuclear energy as part of the answer to global warming, but... Schellenberger? No, sorry, it's not worth considering his arguments for anything. His arguments go like this...
- We don't need to worry about the Amazon burning and being cut down because it's not actually the "lungs of the world"
- We don't need to worry about sea-level rise because the Netherlands
- Burning wood is much worse than burning petroleum, so let's keep burning petroleum
Etc. Schellenberger is an idiot trying to be an iconoclast... and failing miserably because the icons he's tilting at are windmills. Let's leave Schellenberger out of this.
- rglover 6y agoInstead of character attacking him, can you present real arguments backed by data? This line of argumentation is not constructive.
- moultano 6y agoThe guy is a troll. The last nuclear power plant built in the US took 40 years to come fully online and has never made money. Meanwhile solar is going through a moore's law like cost reduction and is cheaper than coal in most places. Geothermal has a much better chance of supplying baseload power than nuclear does at this point.