3 ms·

(A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a

(A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a technology rather than a cold calculus of how much a technology could do to reduce global warming effects and reduce humans environmental impact.

renewiltord 2y ago
I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....

renewiltord 2y ago

I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....