Quote:
Originally Posted by b0son
What I find frustrating is there is no debate about how to tackle the problem. The climate change zealots are 'my way or the highway' and any alternative idea gets ****canned and the person proposing it labelled a climate denier.
Bjorn Lomborg is a great example, put out a doco not long after Al Gore's with lots of great ideas and tech that could be used to mitigate the impact. Was lampooned by the greenies because he deviated from the renewables mantra. The tech exists to pull CO2 out of the air, and can be scaled TODAY. But nobody will do it because carbon capture is seen as climate denial. If its not solar or wind, its not seen as a viable solution.
If we were truly serious about tackling the problem, no solution should be off the table. If we'd built nuclear power plants instead of going all in on renewables, we'd probably seeing a significantly downward trajectory in terms of emissions. Instead, countries in the EU are shutting down nuclear power plants and using coal or natural gas while they wait for renewables to replace the lost capacity.
If we can be choosy about how to tackle climate change, then it cant that big a problem...
|
That is the problem, no solid plans from either side. There is another side to the climate change zealots and both extremes **** me to tears.
One wants to shut a very big part of our economy down overnight and the other just wants to keep digging **** up to no end. All this is denying the reality that there is going to be more coal power overseas if not here and from what I understand it would be preferable they burn our **** rather than other exports
Nuclear is taboo here but we should give some serious consideration to it but it's not even on the table.
We can mine the fuel, we are geologically and politically stable, have plenty of space to put them and dump the waste in the middle of ****en nowhere.