4 ms·
They never said oil and gas had zero value. They never advocated for going back to wood and poo and whalefat. They actually didn't say any of the stuff you're m
by darth_aardvark 4y ago
They never said oil and gas had zero value. They never advocated for going back to wood and poo and whalefat. They actually didn't say any of the stuff you're mad at them for saying, and the stuff you're mad at them for not saying isn't really relevant to their point. I think most people reading these comments know oil and gas provide lots of energy we couldn't get from wood/poo/whalefat.
If you see gas and oil as an improvement to w/p/w, why can't nuclear be an improvement on oil gas?
- korroziya 4y agoYou can tell from their wording that they have a "renewables good, oil bad" mantra. Like I said, they're happy to mention deaths stemming from fossil fuels, but not mention the lives that were helped by that form of energy. It's a tired narrative of people who are too lazy and/or uneducated to discuss the complicated issue of the pros/cons for fossil fuels.
- darth_aardvark 4y agoIt seems like you've projected an entire personality and set of arguments onto this one point they made that wasn't present in their post. They compared fatalities between two energy sources. What do the relative benefits of those two sources have to do with their fatality rate?
- DrBazza 4y agoI really don’t. I’m just tired of anti nuclear propaganda when fossil fuels are demonstrably worse of deaths and pollution. For the avoidance of doubt I fly, and drive a dirty diesel car.
- parasubvert 4y agoFound the Albertan!