,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Germany could have prevented a huge amount of carbon dioxide and other air pollution if it had done this the other way round. ie:
a. Phase out coal
b. (if renewable capacity allows) phase out nuclear
latimes.com/world/europe/l…
a. Phase out coal
b. (if renewable capacity allows) phase out nuclear
latimes.com/world/europe/l…
Any objective assessment would have shown that coal power in Germany was a far greater threat to human health and ecological survival than nuclear power. But it was not done rationally.
Coal kills more people when it goes right than nuclear does when it goes wrong.
Taking on coal meant taking on the entire industrial economy - and the mining unions. Taking on nuclear involved much less political risk. I see the focus by 20th Century protest movements on nuclear power, not coal power, as displacement activity: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Some people on this thread have asked "but what about the long-term impacts of nuclear power"? Of course, these are real, especially the waste legacy. But the long-term impacts of CO2 from fossil fuels are orders of magnitude more dangerous, threatening all living systems.
