2 ms·

Yes, and what screwed us all over were the anti-nuke people. If the US could have built nuclear reactors over the past 40+ years, we would only need to worry a

by jmclnx 3y ago

Yes, and what screwed us all over were the anti-nuke people. If the US could have built nuclear reactors over the past 40+ years, we would only need to worry about the transition to EVs. Granted the corruption surrounding the building of these plants would also have needed to be eliminated, probably the hardest part :( BTW, I support the environment, but I always have and still believe nuclear would have been the best choice. Then we would have time to transition to other sources keeping nuclear as a backup. So now, we are in a hurry up we will all soon die mode. For this, I blame the anti-nuke crowd, I would not be surprised if the coal and oil industries funded these people.

LatteLazy 3y ago
Respectfully I actually think your comment highlights THE core problem with emissions. Climate change is a huge complex problem with 1001 causes and each cause has 1001 possible solutions. But people all pick a single solution. And then insist on it. Renewable people won't support nuclear, nuclear people won't support biomass, biomass people won't support renewables. Ditto reductioneers and public transport enthusiasts and anti-car people. And that is just electricity for car transport, that offers nothing to air travel or construction or agriculture. So everyone sits on their arse saying "it's not MY fault, I recycled a tin can once!". Everyone is saying the same thing: I will only support things others don't and unless I get my own way we should do nothing. So we have, as a species, all agreed to do nothing. But everyone wants to pretend THEY and THEIR solution would have worked, and THEY are the good guy.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Very well put. The root of the problem is far from simple and neither is the solution. I think people are also looking too much for a magic solution that allows them to keep going as is. Like CO2 capture. If we actually build this in quantities that actually make a dent in emissions, we'll be mining half the world for materials to make the installations and power them and ruin the other half to place them and store the captured carbon. It's just never going to be viable especially until we solve the emissions problem first. But it's the promise of a magic solution that keeps it on the map.

by jmclnx 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago

Respectfully I actually think your comment highlights THE core problem with emissions. Climate change is a huge complex problem with 1001 causes and each cause has 1001 possible solutions. But people all pick a single solution. And then insist on it. Renewable people won't support nuclear, nuclear people won't support biomass, biomass people won't support renewables. Ditto reductioneers and public transport enthusiasts and anti-car people. And that is just electricity for car transport, that offers nothing to air travel or construction or agriculture. So everyone sits on their arse saying "it's not MY fault, I recycled a tin can once!". Everyone is saying the same thing: I will only support things others don't and unless I get my own way we should do nothing. So we have, as a species, all agreed to do nothing. But everyone wants to pretend THEY and THEIR solution would have worked, and THEY are the good guy.

wkat4242 3y ago
Very well put. The root of the problem is far from simple and neither is the solution. I think people are also looking too much for a magic solution that allows them to keep going as is. Like CO2 capture. If we actually build this in quantities that actually make a dent in emissions, we'll be mining half the world for materials to make the installations and power them and ruin the other half to place them and store the captured carbon. It's just never going to be viable especially until we solve the emissions problem first. But it's the promise of a magic solution that keeps it on the map.