385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
385 points (92.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5197 readers
894 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Stein and the Greens are also rabidly anti-nuclear, continuing to repeat outdated and debunked nonsense. We can’t plausibly maintain this level of energy use on renewables alone.
That being said, the writer’s claim that Harris is better on climate than Stein is absolutely ridiculous. The Biden/Harris admin set records for fossil fuel extractions, strongly support fracking, waived environmental protections to build Trump’s border wall faster, and want to ban imports of EV’s and solar panels. Plus, their escalating militarism is a carbon nightmare.
Rhetoric won’t save us.
I'm pro nuclear as well but we absolutely can maintain this level of energy consumption on renewables alone.
The question is cost and risk - I'm for diversification of our grid which includes nuclear.
But it is getting to the point where renewables with backups will be cheaper than coal. That's absolutely something you can run the entire grid off of. You can balance storage requirements with excess production capacity that gets shuttered over the summer etc etc
The backup is nuclear.
I don’t really care what it costs. We’re trying to save the habitability of the planet. Damn the cost.
OK, then we just deploy a whole lot of storage capacity as fast as we can to support solar and wind. Nuclear only makes sense if it's cheaper than that, and it's not.
Cheaper long term, yes. Higher upfront cost.
Not quite sure which way you're pointing. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive up front. It has to run for a long time at 100% to make any kind of economic sense.
I’m not concerned about economic sense. I’m worried about keeping the planet habitable.
And we have another path for that. We really don't need nuclear at this point.
Yeah, no. Nuclear is a con. Don‘t believe and spread the energy industry‘s lies. They’re shitting on renewables, because they want consumers dependant on their crap which needs to be subsidised by the state because it’s not economically viable. Thank you.
It’s easy to tell who’s been propagandized, because they care more about how much it will cost than actually saving the planet.
Ah, you assume there’s (or will be) unlimited funds set aside to fight climate change?
If that is so, why not plaster deserts with solar panels and the oceans with wind turbines. Would go a bit quicker than the 10-20 years it takes to finalise one nuclear power plant. The nuclear hype has no scientific basis.
I don’t assume unlimited funds. I know that the only way we can actually address climate change is to overthrow the capitalists driving the pollution. Ending their wars would provide far more than adequate funding, even before wealth redistribution.
I can’t imagine being so uninformed that you believe the advantages of nuclear energy has no scientific basis. On par with the flat earthers.
Jesus man, you want to end capitalism but fall for one of its biggest outfits? Also, right now there is just the capitalist reality and within that science tells us, that nuclear is economically not good enough to support the green transformation. I am fine with overthrowing capitalism, but till then we have to somehow manage with a reality that is inseparable from it.
Nuclear is not capitalists’ “biggest outfit.” You’re thinking of oil, and they pay astroturfers to convince people like you to be anti-nuclear.
I’m talking about the Energy Companies
Edit: the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie. Please look it up, I don’t have the nerve for it anymore.
Oil lobby bot confirmed.
show me your proof that the oil industry paid for anti nuclear sentiment. And try to avoid right wing propaganda. then you may claim whatever you want.
Defending the oil lobby’s anti-nuclear propaganda is really not helping you.
https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
https://rpmanetworks.com/atomkraftclonesite-english/docs/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-war-on-nuclear-power/
https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opposition-to-nuclear-energy/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-subsidies-for-nuclear-power-producers-1493145109
https://climatecoalition.org/who-opposes-nuclear-energy/
https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200
hm, so much…yet so little
But I hope you do know the content of your little collection here and know what a shaky case you have and what conclusions one could draw from that.
It wasn’t meant to convince you. It was meant to show the lurkers you’re full of shit. I’m confident they get the picture.
Blocked.