[testHNac]

We could have gone Nuclear and saved ourselves by slowing down this process.

But Greenpeace and other eco activists were outright against Nuclear.

Now we are still depending on Coal and Fossil Fuels.

So much for saving the environment.

[triceratops]

Definitely only "eco activists" to blame. Not the fossil fuel companies secretly funding them.

[testHNac]

If you know that, then surely the politicians also know who want to save the world.

What have they done about going Nuclear ? https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear

[realusername]

In the EU, the politicians either bought into the new age BS in an hopeless move to gather votes for the more honest ones or straight up got money from Russia to turn a blind eye for the others.

[LatteLazy]

Schrodingers Eco-Activist: All powerful internationally when it comes to stopping nuclear, completely impotent at stopping basically any CO2e source or other pollution...

[adrianN]

Nuclear is not the only option and far from sufficient unless you want a nuclear reactor in your cellar heating your home and would like billions of Ford Nucleons on the street.

[testHNac]

Did I say Nuclear is the only option ?

I said we could have taken action decades back when we had the Nuclear technology.

Not sure why you think one needs a Nuclear Reactor in their house.

Anyways, I guess Nuclear sceptics know best. And thus, here we are winning over Global Warming.

[adrianN]

We could also have taken action decades back without nuclear. That we didn't isn't the fault of either the pro or the anti-nuclear lobby. Both are insignificant compared to the pro-fossil lobby.

[testHNac]

Since you are focused on fossil fuels you can take a stand and avoid any products that are derived from Fossil fuels like non-EV vehicles, Grid based electricity, Plastics, lipsticks, deodorants, fossil fuel based medicines and medical devices, lubricant, waxes, tar for roads, nylon, polyester etc

I am sure you will set an example for all of us to follow by cutting yourself of Fossil Fuel based products completely.

I just suggested Nuclear as it could have been a viable option. And saved Humanity to an extent till we figured out a solution. But, Good ideas don't stand the test of silly American politics.

Do keep us updated about your journey avoiding Fossil-fuel products.

[adrianN]

Why are you reacting like this? It is generally agreed upon that climate change is bad. Stopping the use of fossil fuels is the only way to stop it from getting worse. I really don't care how we do, I just want it done. It's too late to start with nuclear now, so it's a bit silly to discuss what we could've done sixty years ago.

[testHNac]

Because taking an extreme position saying Fossil Fuels are bad and stop using them is the best solution doesn't work.

Sure, they are bad. But as of today the products derived from fossil fuels are irreplaceable. Like the list of products I listed earlier. Unless of course, entire society is willing to give up on these products to save the world. Sadly, that's not ever going to happen. People and society work towards short term benefits.

The challenge with saving the environment is people get stuck in these 'my way or the highway' solutions.

No space for any middle ground. No compromise.

Every possible solution gets an opposition. Because there is probably no perfect solution. Yet.

Nuclear was not the only solution. It 'could have' helped. So can solar, wind and whatever.

We can still start working on implementing solutions that improve things. But we get stuck on asking for the impossible, and if that doesn't get done, we don't consider any other solution.

Whenever work starts on something, you will get a news article having an issue with that and suggesting something altogether different. All noise. No results.