Skip to main content

View Diary: For electric power generation, the end of fossil fuel is in sight (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, Sandino, flowerfarmer, A Siegel

    I made choices decades ago that directly impact my family's ability to survive in a warmed climate - confirmed just last year when USDA changed my growing zone to the next warmer one. We'll be okay, at least until the mountains give up their ghosts. Humans will survive climate change, until they can't anymore. The least we can do about our contributions to the process - literally - is to stop treating the planet as our own personal cesspool. Hell, we should stop doing that even if the climate weren't changing and we weren't contributing to it.

    I'm doing what I can to promote the adaptability we need, to the nation/world at large. We have to change the way we do things, or it will be a lot worse than it needs to be. That would be a shame, but there's really nothing more I can do about it. If everyone were doing what they can it wouldn't be such a hopeless endeavor, would it? Doesn't matter all that much to me in the end, so long as I've done what I can. What more do you expect people to do than that?

    •  Doing as much as you can. (0+ / 0-)
      I'm doing what I can to promote the adaptability we need, to the nation/world at large. We have to change the way we do things, or it will be a lot worse than it needs to be. That would be a shame, but there's really nothing more I can do about it. If everyone were doing what they can it wouldn't be such a hopeless endeavor, would it? Doesn't matter all that much to me in the end, so long as I've done what I can. What more do you expect people to do than that?
      You campaign against nukes while we're still burning coal.
      •  Because nukes aren't green (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        And building new ones generates huge CO2 that takes years of generation to washout. Meanwhile the energy and CO2 costs of mining increasingly scarce uranium and indefinite safe storage of deadly waste means that building nukes does not help reduce CO2 emissions by offsetting coal burning for at least a generation after their creation, if at all.  The risks are so high, that a crony-captured system cannot be trusted to build or maintain them.

      •  "As much" being, according to you, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rovertheoctopus

        supporting nuclear power? Ain't ever going to happen.

        Surprised as I am that you would bother to keep track of my comments in other diaries so as to introduce here out of the blue for no apparent reason, I think you somehow managed to miss something significant about me in regards to the subject of nuclear power and my hard-earned opinions about it and the people who think they run it and the people who don't think their job is to regulate it.

        But just so you know, I have way too much real life experience with nukes, the nuclear industry, and the mal-named Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ever fall sway to any anonymous commenter on these here intertoobs' ill-conceived (or utterly deluded) nuclear cheerleading.

        Nuclear is not a cure for or a defense against climate change. It never will be. It was a terminally dumb idea in the beginning, and it remains terminally dumb at the end. But do carry on as you choose. Just sayin' you may wish to avoid me on the subject...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site