4 ms·

Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessne

by forty 4y ago

Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet. We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it. This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.
- forty 4y ago
  > Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^ The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :) Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.

by forty 4y ago

bluefirebrand 4y ago

> Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet. We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it. This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.

forty 4y ago
> Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^ The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :) Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.