you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree that climate change is probably overexaggerated, but why take the risk if we have technology (nuclear energy) that's both more efficient and more carbon neutral anyways? If the sea levels start rising, this will flood low-lying coastal areas that are too poor, high time preference and/or low-IQ to build the infrastructure necessary to fend off the sea (i.e Bangladesh, Maldives, New Orleans), causing much more destruction than all nuclear disasters combined have ever caused.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Climate change isn't exaggerated. Climate has ALWAYS changed. It's the human role in it which is utterly insignificant, which is blown out of all proportion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

burning coal or oil leads to waste, smoke in the air. nuclear energy is basically burning atoms, it leads to waste, which gives off radiation. Chernobyl, three mile island, Fukushima, these things all did happen so I don't think the risk of nuclear radiation is fake like climate change. With climate change, it will increase world temperature by 2 degrees celcius. That is actually fine. The water level won't rise more than a few inches, it won't be like the fictional movie Waterworld. Solar power and wind power makes more sense. The rich elites don't like that as much. It's free energy. With an oil field, or a coal mine, or a nuclear power plant, they can surround it with their guards and control it and slowly dispense energy for money. Can they surround a solar power plant or a wind power plant and control it, not really, it's easy for regular people and independent nations to make their own setups.