Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Nuclear plants on average pollute less than coal? Nope, gotta get rid of both, YESTERDAY. It's this kind of all-or-nothing debate that makes people not want to give in.
> But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such.
Why do you feel so concerned about Greenpeace when they don't make the laws anywhere (not that I think you're representing their position accurately anyway)? They're not the lobbying heavyweight that fossil fuel industries are.
I don't have a problem with Greenpeace, I just have a problem with how it's all or nothing to their members. We can't have nuclear because nuclear pollutes our planet! Forget that overall it might reduce emissions compared to the current electrical power sources...
Kill the nuclear liability cap and start taxing carbon at a rate commensurate with the damage it actually does and we wouldn't have to debate about which form of energy generation was superior.
It wouldn't make financial sense to build anything other than solar, hydro or wind farms.
>Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such.
Abandoning something (e.g. some technologies) because it's "killing our planet"? What a crazy idea!
No, we gotta have more of it, forever increasing, and it will sort out the problems it creates itself. Why ever be content with anything we have? After all the meaning of life is having more and more of everything.
