You're viewing a single thread.
There isn't enough opposition to entrenched influence. They push back against huge companies doing shitty things. I like that.
I'm ambivalent about their anti-nuclear stance. Renewables seem like a much better bet, but it's hard to say no to anything that would slow down climate change.
They've screwed up on some of their actions, sure. But they're pushing in the right direction.
absolutely, i've done a lot of research on nuclear energy recently and i can safely say: we should've shut down the coal plants. but there are some real problems with long-term storage. so if we did leave them running, we still would need to get renewable either way.
"Some real problems with long-term storage"
Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid's opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.
Look into deep geothermal. We don't need nuclear. There are other options
If we (society as a whole) had started switching to renewables when Greenpeace first started campaigning for them, I suspect we wouldn't have the climate emergency that makes nuclear look attractive.
It's hard to expect them to change their stance just because we failed to follow their lead for decades.
Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn't going to change.
I think that's what most people miss. Green Peace is mostly right. Everything scientists and environmentalists have been saying for decades is right. They're easy to shit in because they are passionate and wear their hearts on their sleeves, but they're right: we need to do better.
They're easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.