[tomp]

Fossil fuels caused the greatest progress in history of mankind, and resulted in decimation of disease, famine and poverty.

Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).

[ethanbond]

Okay? And now where do we go from here? Decisions about the future shouldn’t be based on some weird tribalistic pride about your fav energy source’s vibes or the historical ethics of it. It’s fucking oil, it isn’t going to get hurt feelings.

[ravenstine]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of big corporations using propaganda, especially towards children but, that topic aside, people are kidding themselves if they believe their way of life would exist without fossil fuels. Look up the Haber process; your ability to walk down to a Whole Foods in a city of millions and buy groceries to support your vegan diet wouldn't be a thing. The stepping stone to things like nuclear and solar wouldn't be there. Humanity would be so bass-ackwards by now without fossil fuels that people would still be routinely dying of diseases that today are well treated, as well as mere child birth. The only way someone can't connect the progress of the 20th and 21st centuries with fossil fuels is to view it only in isolation. The "fossil fuels bad" attitude is at best quixotic, and at worst enters the realm of insanity. Next to none of us would give up our lifestyle that benefits from fossil fuels (which includes the advance of nuclear) for the sake of decarbonization.

I can tell someone is going ask you for your "solution."

You know what the solution is, reader? Either support pro-nuclear policies until something better comes along, or shut up about climate change. In my experience, every single person who views climate change as an impending catastrophe responds with "but what if" when asked about nuclear. This is a widespread form of insanity. If we are headed for catastrophe, or extinction according to some, then the purely hypothetical world-ending events related to nuclear reactors shouldn't be any more of a problem. Personally, I'll take 100 Chernobyl-like events over extinction and a dying planet. Think that's crazy? Do the math.

[jabradoodle]

> You know what the solution is, reader? Either support pro-nuclear policies until something better comes along, or shut up about climate change.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases.

No one thinks fossil fuels were not essential in getting us to where we are.

[TheLoafOfBread]

> Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases.

At 1pm when sun is shining. For the rest of the time you need to run backup ... on fossil fuels. This is the main reason why Germany is unlikely to decarbonize in a near future.

[datavirtue]

My money is on insanity winning.

[permo-w]

I'd never heard of the Haber process, it was interesting to read about

according to wikipedia it cut the required farmland to feed a population in four. obviously it's hard to argue with more food for more people, but it clearly made urbanisation and overpopulation that much easier. quite a brilliant invention of engineering, but is it actually a good thing for a population to grow at that rate?

[jdpedrie]

Easy to say when it’s not your kids dying of starvation.

[permo-w]

there are plenty of kids dying of starvation

[TheLoafOfBread]

What are you implying by this comment?

[permo-w]

I think it's pretty obvious what I'm implying. overpopulation is bad, and the Haber process has massively accelerated overpopulation. ergo it's worth questioning whether it's actually a good thing

[wewxjfq]

Ah, the Dolchstoßlegende of nuclear energy again. The Green movement was an absolute fringe group without power that never influenced any decision regarding nuclear energy in the 20th century.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Just recently the Greens got Germany to shutter their nuclear power plants increasing their use of coal.

[tekmate]

that timeline was decided by the a conservative government after fukushima

[TheLoafOfBread]

And Greens are in government and could have cancel it. They have chosen not to. They are responsible as well.

[wiseowise]

> in the 20th century.

[lostlogin]

Both you and the parent can be correct here - assuming your ‘recently’ is this century.

[cellu]

Was it the green movement opposing nuclear power or fossil fuel companies?

[sokoloff]

I think it was both.

Fossil fuel companies opposing it I can understand: it’s a straightforward, strategic move.

For green proponents, I think it was an own goal, likely driven by a mix of fear and failing to realize that people would not readily temper their demand for energy and the holistic solution needs to include humanity harnessing substantial amounts of energy. Ruling out nuclear directly (in a single step) means decades of people creating gigatons more emissions from burning fossil fuels.

[b112]

Back when global warming wasn't really widely discussed, or even believed, nuclear power was seen as quite threatening to a environmentalist.

After all, nuclear power was brand new. And the pollution and death if one goes bad...

[viraptor]

Also anti-nuclear greens today and then were looking at significantly different tech. I mean, some of that started when the core catchers weren't a standard thing.

[mensetmanusman]

To be fair, the green movement was subverted by nation states like Russia and they had no idea.

[itomato]

The personal atomic jet pack?