Friday, 22 July 2016

Greenies caused climate change

How so?
Here's how:
In the late sixties the world, led by the US, was gearing up to massively expand nuclear energy. 
The greenies stepped in to stop it. Especially Greenpeace, which launched its savvy scare points. We know them to this day: nuclear meltdown (Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome"), terrorism, and nuclear waste. 
Each of these is debunked. But the broad mass of the first world people still believe them and trot them out at first hint of a pro-nuclear argument.  
The accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima (3 in 70 years), don't prove the danger of nuclear power. They prove the opposite. Workers directly killed: zero. People dying as a result of the accidents: in the thousands. Over seven decades, that's minuscule. Especially compared with the coal industry that dominates electricity production as a result of the greenies stopping nuclear: millions killed every year by emphysema from coal particulates and thousands killed every year mining the stuff (3,000+ per year in China alone). 
Fukushima was an outdated technology sited on a fault line hit by a once in a thousand year tsunami. Still, killed in the accident: zero. 
Had the greenies not opposed nuclear, the technology would be even more advanced by now than it is. And it's already way ahead of Fukushima-era nuclear. 
The world gets 11% of its electricity (21+ thousand TWh/a) from nuclear. For every nuclear station we now have, if we had ten instead, we would need no coal, no oil, no natural gas, no renewables, to generate electricity. We would be fully electrified with zero-carbon energy. 
4,350 stations instead of 435. 
The reason we are not already at zero-carbon electricity is simple: the Greenies. Especially Greenpeace
Instead, because of them, we have pushed renewables.  We have done so to the detriment of the only truly carbon-free energy, Nuclear.
The result is unintended consequences like those set out in the New York Times article below. (It's a lefty paper, the "paper of record", so it must be right, right?)

From the New York Times: