4 ms·

> Why would you lunp Greta Thunberg in there? By age alone, she’s not to blame for climate change. And what she does explicitly advocate for is in her own words

> Why would you lunp Greta Thunberg in there? By age alone, she’s not to blame for climate change. And what she does explicitly advocate for is in her own words: “Listen to the scientists” You're right, she isn't to blame for climate change, but she is one of the most prominent characters in the world and when she says "personally, I am against nuclear power"[0], people listen. It causes real damage. She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. > Blaming the hippies for climate change is absurd. I really don't think it is. I think it is climate alarmists (purely with good intentions, as I mentioned earlier) like Thunberg going back several decades that have pressured governments into abandoning investment in nuclear power. [0]: https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.733630957004727/793436521024170/?theater&hc_location=ufi https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.73363095... [1]: https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear

shakna 5y ago
> She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. She's a kid. Expecting a kid to be holistically consistent, when most adults still can't, isn't something that is reasonable. People do listen to her, but... She's a kid. Expecting her to be responsible for all of her actions isn't something that even the law expects.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  You're right, but the damage is still done. As you say, people do listen to her. I'm not sure how that problem can be fixed.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    Fundamentally, if you can’t listen to people that are wrong on one thing, then there’s nobody you can listen to. Everyone is wrong on one thing at least, everyone is inconsistent. A lot of people advocating for nuclear power still eat meat, while cutting back on meat usage is a substantial factor in combating destruction of wildlife habitat and reducing emissions. Not owning a car, not flying, all things that can effectively be done on a personal level now, instead of or even in parallel to advocating for nuclear power. The belief that technology will save us all and that we don’t have to change our personal lifestyles has in my opinion a strong resemblance to religious beliefs.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      Again, I agree with you, so your comment feels like a bit of a strawman. I'm not arguing in favour of ideological purity. I am merely concerned with pragmatic solutions to the problems that we face. I don't think pressing the power save button on your television makes a meaningful difference. I also don't think banning cars or planes — an idea many environmental activists are enthusiastic about — is realistic. I think the scale of the problem we face, and the extent of impact necessary to mitigate it, requires investment in nuclear power. Other forms of clean energy are useful, but supplementary. If Thunberg were wrong about other things, it would be inconsequential. For her to push the wrong message about her core argument though is far less forgivable.
HWR_14 5y ago
I'm pretty sure we've moved past the need for nuclear. Renewables just work well enough. Given a better grid and sufficient overbuilding, combined with some storage (probably pumping water uphill) we can be on fuel free electricity.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  I provided a source to at least try to substantiate my claim. What qualifies you to make this kind of assessment?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    The only actual data I saw on your source dated in the past 8 years was something showing that in 2019 alone, 1/7 more of the Germany energy production moved to renewables (doubling its share from 1/7 to 2/7). That sounds good to me! They also said we'll have to invest hundreds of billions over a decade in rebuilding the electrical grid. Given that the grid keeps setting California on fire, that seems like an investment we'll have to make anyway.
    - OkayPhysicist 5y ago
      Germany's an odd case in the renewable energy space, because while they produce an excess of energy quite regularly thanks to their renewables, they're also heavily reliant on natural gas and imported nuclear energy from France to maintain grid stability. Their ability to build up such a large share of renewables hinges on other European countries not doing so.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      If you only found one data point from the past 8 years in that source, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to read a little harder. If that's a struggle, come back after you've watched Pandora's Promise with a truly open mind. The source above addresses why renewables aren't a complete solution. Fossil fuel companies also know that renewables aren't a complete solution, which is exactly why fossil fuel companies funded and ran anti-nuclear propaganda campaigns back in the 1970s, encouraging civilians to opt for solar instead! Because they knew it was never going to happen! https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-part-18-an-oldie-but-a-goodie-oil-heat-institute-of-long-island-ad-using-scare-tactics-to-fight-shoreham/ https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-part-18-an-oldie-but-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

shakna 5y ago

> She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. She's a kid. Expecting a kid to be holistically consistent, when most adults still can't, isn't something that is reasonable. People do listen to her, but... She's a kid. Expecting her to be responsible for all of her actions isn't something that even the law expects.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
You're right, but the damage is still done. As you say, people do listen to her. I'm not sure how that problem can be fixed.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  Fundamentally, if you can’t listen to people that are wrong on one thing, then there’s nobody you can listen to. Everyone is wrong on one thing at least, everyone is inconsistent. A lot of people advocating for nuclear power still eat meat, while cutting back on meat usage is a substantial factor in combating destruction of wildlife habitat and reducing emissions. Not owning a car, not flying, all things that can effectively be done on a personal level now, instead of or even in parallel to advocating for nuclear power. The belief that technology will save us all and that we don’t have to change our personal lifestyles has in my opinion a strong resemblance to religious beliefs.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    Again, I agree with you, so your comment feels like a bit of a strawman. I'm not arguing in favour of ideological purity. I am merely concerned with pragmatic solutions to the problems that we face. I don't think pressing the power save button on your television makes a meaningful difference. I also don't think banning cars or planes — an idea many environmental activists are enthusiastic about — is realistic. I think the scale of the problem we face, and the extent of impact necessary to mitigate it, requires investment in nuclear power. Other forms of clean energy are useful, but supplementary. If Thunberg were wrong about other things, it would be inconsequential. For her to push the wrong message about her core argument though is far less forgivable.

HWR_14 5y ago

I'm pretty sure we've moved past the need for nuclear. Renewables just work well enough. Given a better grid and sufficient overbuilding, combined with some storage (probably pumping water uphill) we can be on fuel free electricity.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
I provided a source to at least try to substantiate my claim. What qualifies you to make this kind of assessment?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The only actual data I saw on your source dated in the past 8 years was something showing that in 2019 alone, 1/7 more of the Germany energy production moved to renewables (doubling its share from 1/7 to 2/7). That sounds good to me! They also said we'll have to invest hundreds of billions over a decade in rebuilding the electrical grid. Given that the grid keeps setting California on fire, that seems like an investment we'll have to make anyway.
  - OkayPhysicist 5y ago
    Germany's an odd case in the renewable energy space, because while they produce an excess of energy quite regularly thanks to their renewables, they're also heavily reliant on natural gas and imported nuclear energy from France to maintain grid stability. Their ability to build up such a large share of renewables hinges on other European countries not doing so.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    If you only found one data point from the past 8 years in that source, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to read a little harder. If that's a struggle, come back after you've watched Pandora's Promise with a truly open mind. The source above addresses why renewables aren't a complete solution. Fossil fuel companies also know that renewables aren't a complete solution, which is exactly why fossil fuel companies funded and ran anti-nuclear propaganda campaigns back in the 1970s, encouraging civilians to opt for solar instead! Because they knew it was never going to happen! https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-part-18-an-oldie-but-a-goodie-oil-heat-institute-of-long-island-ad-using-scare-tactics-to-fight-shoreham/ https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-part-18-an-oldie-but-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]