@Forester@yiffit.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish • 2 months agoWe can do all three things at onceyiffit.netimagemessage-square226fedilinkarrow-up1860
arrow-up1860imageWe can do all three things at onceyiffit.net@Forester@yiffit.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish • 2 months agomessage-square226fedilink
minus-square@Sniatch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink14•2 months agoBut its also possible without nuclear waste. You are just pushing the problems with the waste to the future generations.
minus-squareatro_citylinkfedilink11•2 months agoThere needs to be a future generation to push it onto first…
minus-square@Sniatch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink10•2 months agoAgreed, the future generations already have enough problems. Thats why we should invest into stuff that brings solutions and does not create problems.
minus-square@Forester@yiffit.netOPlinkfedilink11•2 months agoYou and your fearmongering is the problem
minus-square@Sniatch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink5•2 months agoNo, money is the problem. If nuclear wasnt that expensive then sure, go for it.
minus-squareatro_citylinkfedilink3•2 months agoMoney a problem? We have individuals with more money than entire cities and companies with more money than entire nations. Money is not the problem.
minus-square@Sniatch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink3•2 months agoYes because nuclear plants are so expensive which means electricity price will go up for the non rich people. Unless of course they use tax money to bring down the cost but that means you still paying with your taxes to make it more affordable.
minus-square@areyouevenreal@lemm.eelinkfedilink2•edit-22 months agoTax the rich or better yet abolish them completely.
minus-square@Star@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilink6•2 months agoNuclear fuel came from the ground, it can go back in the ground. Future generations aren’t going to be impacted by nuclear waste storage.
minus-square@Duamerthrax@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink6•2 months agoNo one who makes decisions so far has cared about future generations.
minus-square@Sniatch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink6•edit-22 months agoWell renewables are better for future generations. Maye you shuld push for that instead of an overly expensive water boiling maschine
minus-square@zalgotext@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilink5•2 months agoNearly every power plant ever, including green ones, is an overly expensive water boiling machine
minus-square@Duamerthrax@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink4•2 months agoI’m actually pushing for degrowth. It’s the simplest path to ending oil use
But its also possible without nuclear waste. You are just pushing the problems with the waste to the future generations.
There needs to be a future generation to push it onto first…
Agreed, the future generations already have enough problems. Thats why we should invest into stuff that brings solutions and does not create problems.
You and your fearmongering is the problem
No, money is the problem. If nuclear wasnt that expensive then sure, go for it.
Money a problem? We have individuals with more money than entire cities and companies with more money than entire nations. Money is not the problem.
Yes because nuclear plants are so expensive which means electricity price will go up for the non rich people. Unless of course they use tax money to bring down the cost but that means you still paying with your taxes to make it more affordable.
Tax the rich or better yet abolish them completely.
Nuclear fuel came from the ground, it can go back in the ground. Future generations aren’t going to be impacted by nuclear waste storage.
No one who makes decisions so far has cared about future generations.
Well renewables are better for future generations. Maye you shuld push for that instead of an overly expensive water boiling maschine
Nearly every power plant ever, including green ones, is an overly expensive water boiling machine
I’m actually pushing for degrowth. It’s the simplest path to ending oil use