>Where your argument falls down, however, is that you're making it sound like a choice between the toxic chemical pollution from "clean" energy and the greenhou

>Where your argument falls down, however, is that you're making it sound like a choice between the toxic chemical pollution from "clean" energy and the greenhouse gas pollution from coal, gas and oil. It's not. Burning fossil fuels releases a huge amount of toxic chemicals as well. People are getting lung cancer and asthma from living in polluted cities. And the death toll from coal power is astronomical. I don't look at them as separate. All these (non-nuclear) 'alternative' or 'green' or 'clean' energies do is adjust the proportions of fossil fuels at various points in the logistics chain to procure them. They don't really reduce its usage; at best they just concentrate it closer to the areas of direct procurement. For example with electric cars, they simply move the consumption of 'dirty' energy to increase at coal plants and procuring the materials for manufacturing. Something very rarely considered in the political dialogues surrounding energy is the logistics and security issues. Solar panels are essentially totally dependent on China for example. That issue should be solved before it is taken seriously as an alternative. https://archive.is/6Mg5V https://archive.is/6Mg5V The only source of energy that reduces pollution the most dramatically with the most controllable costs to the environment is nuclear.