• @umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -710 months ago

    The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

    • @SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      510 months ago

      No. The original comment said the “worst disaster made a very small she’s of the planet uninhabitable”. Keep in mind this disaster was the result of Soviet incompetence and completely avoidable with standards implemented in the US.

      They’re saying our “worst case scenario” using nuclear power is better than worst case scenario continuing to use fossil fuels.

      Likelihood of worse case scenario using nuclear power is also extremely low. Whereas worst case scenario (billions of people dying) for continuing to use fossil fuels is EXTREMELY HIGH.

    • Norah - She/They
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.

      • @umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        010 months ago

        So installing a nuclear reactor in my province where we have ample hydro electric power options would save that island?

        It’s like you are yell at everyone saying nuclear power or die. There are lots of options to clean reliable energy. In some cases nuclear will be the best option but not always.

        • Norah - She/They
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I’m not that pro-nuclear. You just made a shitty comparison ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          Edit: Also if you think hydro is the solution, again, more uninhabitable land. Dams are their own ecological disaster.