3 ms·
If we could replace those things right now we would already have done so. That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses.
by adrianN 4y ago
If we could replace those things right now we would already have done so. That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses.
And I count furnaces, cement making, and electricity production as fuel, since all you need for the process is heat.
- slothtrop 4y ago> That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. It never was. It's a suggestion that near-term abatability e.g. 27 years is untenable. Policy and projection qua climate can't hinge on the promise of hypotheticals. It's possible to leverage nuclear more for an accelerated timeline, but the greens keep trying to block progress. Can't have your cake and eat it too is the way I see it.