• andyburke@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is not what happened. Takes like this, that oversimplify and make things seem inevitable aren’t very helpful.

    For decades before 1988 and for decades after, people have advocated for the environment. The shift to an understanding that we can have an impact on our planet has been slow and hard-won. Don’t pretend like one person or one hearing or one technology could have prevented all this - that’s just not true.

    You may be upset that nuclear wasn’t or isn’t used more, but it doesn’t really matter at this point - we are here, and we have really inexpensive and seemingly low impact technologies like solar and wind with battery or other types of storage. Plus, we can now have a more distributed grid with installs right in people’s homes.

    Move past whatever has you hung up on nuclear, there’s lots of other ways to have a positive impact on our environmental future.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, ignorant takes like yours are the real problem. We still can’t solve climate change without nuclear power, it’s simple math, physics and economics.

      All the models we have show that we need a huge expansion of nuclear power, even if solar and wind growth fits the most optimistic curve we can think of.

      If there was a way to solve climate change without it, I would be more optimistic about the future.

      But there are too many ignorant people who can’t even do basic math.