> It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green. IMHO this is an indication that the a

> It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green. IMHO this is an indication that the adjective "green" is too vague and contradictory that it's counterproductive to use it in current discussions. Different types of "non-green" have very different properties, different types of pollution are not interchangeable and we have to be specific about which we're talking about. If global warming is a serious crisis, then it implies that trading off some greenhouse gases for a toxic mining pit might be a good deal, a net win from the environmental perspective, as the environmental damage to these few mining locations are far outweighed by the decrease in environmental damage throughout the planet. The same applies for nuclear waste - their environmental issues must always be considered not in absolute risk, but in comparison to the environmental cost of the generation of an equivalent (immense) quantity of fossil fuel or the environmental production costs of the immense scale battery+solar equipment to replace gigawatts of nuclear power. Anyone who actually wants to effectively advance environmental goals has to consider possible tradeoffs of one "not green" thing versus another, and be willing to accept compromises that trade off a small harm to reduce a much bigger one; and anyone who insists that anything with an environmental cost is taboo is effectively advocating for even greater harm to the environment.