[NeedMoreTea]

I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use.

Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and following sentence. He has such a clear agenda I find him hard to trust on any topic.

[rayiner]

He’s linking to the IPCC and UN reports he’s citing so you can just look it up.

Being anti-nuclear is a pretty good indication that you don’t think climate change is really a serious problem. France has a CO2 footprint much lower than its neighbors because it’s grid is heavily nuclear. (Right now, we don’t have the battery technology for a fully renewable grid, so countries like Germany must backup renewables with coal and gas. Also, it makes no sense to shut down nuclear plants that have already been paid for to build renewables. If climate change was really pressing, you’d keep the nuclear plant running, build the renewable resource, and shut down a coal plant instead.)

[NeedMoreTea]

Being obstinately anti-nuclear can be, though it pays to recognise the absurd costs that tend to come with nuclear electricity when you consider full lifecycle including decommissioning and waste handling. Right now we can bring renewables online cheaper and faster, though we are probably best served with a mix of both if nuclear costs can be constrained. Germany's move from already existing nuclear whilst using lignite is madness.

Being a pro-nuclear zealot who feels solar, wind, and hydro essentially has no place is as damaging and unhelpful, with as much of an agenda as anyone pro-fossil or believing climate heating isn't a problem. The man has a one issue agenda, read all his writings accordingly. shrug :)