|
|
|
|
|
by ravenstine
988 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.