I swear I didn't write this article, but offered the chance, I might very well have done so.

[NNadir]

The hyper-emotional narrative and negativity around nuclear energy is not accidental

The intro sounds like a paraphrase of many of my posts:

‘The lamps are going out all over Europe,’ – so said Britain’s Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the First World War, but it is perhaps even more literally the case today.

As German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock noted last week, ‘We buy 50% of our coal from Russia. If we exclude Russia from SWIFT the lights in Germany will go out’.

This caused outrage on social media, but for the wrong reasons. Losing access to electricity is a big deal: blackouts are serious and harm human health. The poor decision-making which has made these countries dependent on a dictator is another issue – and one that should incense us all.

What went wrong? Germany and Italy chose to phase out their nuclear power stations, opting to become reliant on Russian imports instead.

Fossil fuels are not safe or clean – they are causing the destruction of our planet and doing immense harm to our wellbeing. It seems obvious, but while people nod along when you say it, the minute you suggest that, just maybe, nuclear is a better alternative, the conversation changes...

I'm scrambling the below quotes out of order, but they all hit high notes about reality.

And I certainly have noted Gerhardt Schroeder leaving the German Chancellor role to work for Putin:

...Then there’s former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, who began the phase-out of nuclear power plants in Germany, and was later elected to Gazprom’s board of directors. Schroeder, who led Germany from 1998 to 2005, developed a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he was chancellor. In a recent interview Schroeder accused Ukraine, rather than Russia, of ‘sabre-rattling’ and he also insisted Russia was not interested in military intervention. Despite a barrage of criticism, even today he has still not cut his ties to the Kremlin, prompting members of his office staff to resign in protest...

The earlier remark in the article are new to me, but I certainly consider them accurate:

Green Party member and Belgian Minister of Energy, Tinne Van der Straeten, who is stauchly against nuclear power, previously worked for the law firm that defended Russian gas giant Gazprom’s interests. Van der Straeten argues for a Belgian future run by 100% renewables, but omits the fact that they will remain reliant on gas imports.

As I noted recently of Germany, it's now entered the Orwellian "Green is black" realm.

I didn't know that Greenpeace was in the gas business, but lacking any respect for any organization who offers the rote claim that these people give a shit about the environment, that they are "environmentalists." They are, in fact, a cause of climate change, and the way they raise money is tantamount to the Republican Party raising money to fight racism and sexism:

Other major NGOs, like Greenpeace, have long lobbied against nuclear energy all over the world. Greenpeace’s Battle of Grids strategy proposes gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants to provide ‘flexible backup for wind and solar power’. The NGO has its own energy company, which is misleadingly named ‘ProWindGas’, while actually selling 99% gas to consumers.

At least, in a rare statement of truth they state clearly that they have no problem with gas, in fact, they're willing to make money off it.

I do, I have a big, big, big problem with gas, but these fuckers don't.

But proof I did not write this article can be found here:

Today, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers and 5G conspiracy theorists all share a common feature with anti-nuclear campaigners. They reject the scientific consensus that organisations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and United Nations (UN) represent, which is that we need nuclear energy, along with renewables, to decarbonise. One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr James Hansen, says: ‘Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them’.

I would have never written the statement I placed in bold.

I don't think we "need" renewables. They're useless, and the word "renewable" applied to solar and wind energy is a pure oxymoron. They not only entrench dangerous fossil fuels, they serve mining interests and they are not sustainable in any form because of the onerous mass and land requirements. Energy dependence on weather failed to provide for humanity back in the early 19th century; it was the "fix" that caused the problem, fossil fuels.

Now we have ersatz "environmentalists," given how our "...but her emails..." media refers to Greenpeace, who have no problem with fossil fuels, even though they are killing the planet (and people), actively, and at doing so an accelerating rate.

All this this said, I agree with the first sentence in the paragraph of the last excerpt, and make this statement all the time. The rise of the antivax movement has drawn the mentality of the antinuke set into full relief in my opinion.

We've been had.

[multigraincracker]

1. I think the Earth is already toast.

Best of luck everyone.

[NNadir]

2. I think we should make every effort to save what is left to save, and perhaps restore what can...

...be restored.

We're not going to do that when anyone, as happens here, carries on about "green hydrogen" bullshit, or admiringly posts pictures of vast stretches of land made into industrial parks for wind and solar stuff, and morons who carry on endlessly about so called "nuclear waste" without being able to show that the 70 year history of storage of used nuclear fuel has killed as many people as will die in the next three hours from air pollution.

We should never surrender to ignorance and accept its consequences.

[phoenix75]

5. I admire your optimism.

If you could convert all the magats here in the US and other similar thinking people elsewhere on the planet to suddenly become environmentally conscious, then yes, we could still possibly turn some things around. But realistically, the odds of that happening are about the same as me flying to the moon in a telephone booth. Just saying....

[NNadir]

6. Regrettably, it's not just the Magats.

You can hear lots and lots and lots of delusional crap on our end of the political spectrum; I've been hearing it here for more than 20 years.

(We're all going to drive around in hydrogen cars powered by "green hydrogen." Really?)

This said, realistic solutions exist and it is morally unacceptable to simply throw up one's hands and say, "there's no sense in doing anything because stupidity exists."

It is the responsibility of those who do the work, to show the way, and if necessary to push both cynicism and wishful thinking out of the way.

As there are people on the front lines of these solutions, and I know some, I think comparing flying to the moon in a telephone booth to the need to do what can be done is not a worthy attitude for those people, nor, for that matter, me.

[phoenix75]

4. I agree multigraincracker,

I fear that we have already crossed the Rubicon.

[Karadeniz]

3. Well said!