LogFAQs > #926444878

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 235: Autopsy-Turvy
HeroDelTiempo17 08/23/19 10:56:37 AM #480:	GuessMyUserName posted... If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath. Not impossible, but if the renewable plan is a valid option why not take it? Not to mention that aiming high and failing is completely fine as long as the minimum targets I mentioned are still met. I think Bernie attempting to get to 100% renewable, failing, but still cutting emissions in half is the most likely outcome and that's STILL a great, if not better, result. But maybe even that is unreasonable. --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:926444878] in Politics C... [t:77943564]...</cite> <quote>GuessMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote>If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.</quote> Not impossible, but if the renewable plan is a valid option why not take it? Not to mention that aiming high and failing is completely fine as long as the minimum targets I mentioned are still met. I think Bernie attempting to get to 100% renewable, failing, but still cutting emissions in half is the most likely outcome and that's STILL a great, if not better, result. But maybe even that is unreasonable. --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1