4 ms·
Environmental activists are almost entirely responsible for the killing of nuclear energy in the 1970s. Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet.
by tompccs 3y ago
Environmental activists are almost entirely responsible for the killing of nuclear energy in the 1970s. Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet.
- AlexandrB 3y ago> Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet. That's a bit of a stretch given how much money the fossil fuel industry has spent on misinformation and greenwashing.
- perfunctory 3y agoFunny how environmental activists were powerful enough to kill the nuclear energy but not the fossil one.
- odiroot 3y agoGuess which state earns a lot on Europe staying with fossil fuels but not much if we go all nuclear?
- weberer 3y agoI would bet most of these protests were funded by the fossil fuel industry. The chances of this many people organically being anti-nuclear are near 0%.
- marcusverus 3y agoThey were able to kill the nuclear energy industry because the economic cost of killing it was low. The alternative to cheap, reliable nuclear was cheap, reliable coal. They're struggling to kill off the fossil fuel industry because the alternative to cheap, reliable coal/natural gas is expensive (when accounting for energy storage + backup energy production capacity), less reliable renewables. Ironically, they'd have a much easier if the alternative to cheap, reliable coal/natural gas was cheap, reliable nuclear energy!
- wolrah 3y ago> Funny how environmental activists were powerful enough to kill the nuclear energy but not the fossil one. It's a lot harder to affect something that's so firmly embedded in how we do things as a society. Blocking new nuclear developments was a lot easier than undoing generations worth of infrastructure around fossil power. A comparison can be drawn to the USA's short-lived attempt at prohibition of alcohol versus the long-lasting prohibition of marijuana which is only now finally calling apart. The one our society has been at least partially built around for generations has its problems normalized and mostly disregarded until something unignorable happens, which still often gets swept under the rug, where the alternative gets constant scrutiny and has to meet standards the established norm has never been held to.
- Anthony-G 3y agoIt’s also funny how it was the environmental activists who were the ones who were powerful/influential enough to be “entirely responsible” for killing nuclear energy as opposed to be the poor old fossil fuel industry.
- master-lincoln 3y agoClimate activists are to blame for much of climate change because they advocated against using one risky form of energy production? There were other options and the option of reducing energy usage (and standard of living). So I agree that activists might be responsible for nuclear energy decline in the west, but not that they are to blame for climate change because of that.
- thiht 3y ago> the option of reducing energy usage (and standard of living) That was never an option. It still isn’t.
- master-lincoln 3y agoWhy not?
- baerrie 3y agoDefinitely not the case, fossil fuel interests and money did this
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYeah, lets blame Global Warming on the environmentalist. Even though the Nuclear Industry was super powerful. Those little environmentalist toook it doowwwwn. Chernobyl and Fukushima and failings of the industry were completely un-related. Wonder why if environmentalist are so strong, they can't take on fossil fuel?