4 ms·
Of course it isn't. If climate change were a scientific reality in which if we didn't switch off fossil fuels immediately we'd face drastic consequence people l
by _3u10 5y ago
Of course it isn't. If climate change were a scientific reality in which if we didn't switch off fossil fuels immediately we'd face drastic consequence people like this would be gung ho on any technology that could save the planet, but would destroy a single mountain in Arizona.
Since climate change isn't a reality but is a political problem created to benefit solar and wind we can safely ignore nuclear as a solution to climate change because it also has some but very limited environmental costs.
It's the same reason in BC where I live all the climate change people are against hydro power (Site C).
It's very clear to me that anyone against nuclear doesn't really believe that we're on the brink of destroying the planet.
- 7thaccount 5y agoI think it's possible that many feel that either option (global warming) or (nuclear meltdown) could easily doom our nation. In other words, if one solution to freezing to death would be to burn down your house, they wouldn't take it. Sure it would fix your problem for a few minutes and then you'd be dead. Note that I'm not against nuclear, just trying to point out how those you're referring to would view the situation.
- _3u10 5y agoWhen I was growing up my dad and I would talk about the people who froze to death in their cars out in the valley every few years when there was a freak storm and chat about how to burn the family car down to survive should we get stuck in a storm like that. I'm definitely more in the Dudley and Stephens camp than most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens I think the US comes out slightly ahead in the worst case climate change scenario, Canada is a huge winner.
- 7thaccount 5y agoRussia is the real winner in a much warmer world. All that useless ice becomes open ports and farmland I would guess.