3 ms·
It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a rel
by the_gastropod 4y ago
It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself.
MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
- darkmighty 4y agoThe carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation) It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable. Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).