I stopped taking this seriously after China made so many brand new coal powerplants that will remain in service for 60 - 90 years that several countries would have to implode and turn into 99% forest to offset that.
When the biggest polluter in the world just decided to comit to a century of increased GHG emissions, don't try to tell me my already low pollution nation ( 99% renewable electricity generation ) has to accept greenwashing policies, extra taxes and manoeuvres to indirectly or directly ban cars.
More energy-efficient techs is nice. Lower heating/cooling costs because of better houses, lower energy consumption on appliances, yay. Dystopian bans or restrictions on personal cars towards your bullshit forceful turn to public transports? Fuck off.
The elites virtue-signaling from their private jets and frequent plane rides, and overall consumption 1000X that of the average person can also fuck-off.
Wasn't the recent decision by Washington to not renew licenses for Florida's reactors based on activism by a group that ended up being linked to the Oil industry ?
Anti-Nuclear groups are probably 99% oil tycoons masquerading as activist with a few useful purple haired idiots that drank the kool-aid managing their twitter account.
Dunno about the USA, but in western Europe, anti-nuclear activism rose from the communist movements in the 1960s and were heavily sponsored by the Soviet Union with the goal of weakening the west. The Soviets were building nuke plants as far as they could to secure stable sources of energy while spending shitloads of money campaigning against their enemies doing the same.
So yes, in a sense, it was an oil tycoon nation campaigning against nuclear power back then.
And nowadays the children and grandchildren of those western communist revolutionnaires scream that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda.
I stopped taking this seriously after China made so many brand new coal powerplants that will remain in service for 60 - 90 years that several countries would have to implode and turn into 99% forest to offset that.
When the biggest polluter in the world just decided to comit to a century of increased GHG emissions, don't try to tell me my already low pollution nation ( 99% renewable electricity generation ) has to accept greenwashing policies, extra taxes and manoeuvres to indirectly or directly ban cars.
More energy-efficient techs is nice. Lower heating/cooling costs because of better houses, lower energy consumption on appliances, yay. Dystopian bans or restrictions on personal cars towards your bullshit forceful turn to public transports? Fuck off.
The elites virtue-signaling from their private jets and frequent plane rides, and overall consumption 1000X that of the average person can also fuck-off.
Nuclear reactors would solve all their complaints without requiring the masses to sacrifice their freedoms and their wealth.
Convenient that they've convinced everyone that Nuclear is to dangerous to use and completely overregulated the nuclear industry.
Wasn't the recent decision by Washington to not renew licenses for Florida's reactors based on activism by a group that ended up being linked to the Oil industry ?
Anti-Nuclear groups are probably 99% oil tycoons masquerading as activist with a few useful purple haired idiots that drank the kool-aid managing their twitter account.
Dunno about the USA, but in western Europe, anti-nuclear activism rose from the communist movements in the 1960s and were heavily sponsored by the Soviet Union with the goal of weakening the west. The Soviets were building nuke plants as far as they could to secure stable sources of energy while spending shitloads of money campaigning against their enemies doing the same.
So yes, in a sense, it was an oil tycoon nation campaigning against nuclear power back then.
And nowadays the children and grandchildren of those western communist revolutionnaires scream that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda.