Whilst IMO nuclear could be very useful as a transition in advanced economies, it was never a solution for everywhere in the world.simonineaston wrote: ↑8 Oct 2024, 12:49pmProf Lovelock, who was very often right, as he had no political axe to grind, (see too Prof D Nutt) pointed out long ago that adoption of nuclear energy would have bought us enough time to develop alternative energy sources so we could have moved away from fossil fueled power in time to avoid the worst climate change.Perhaps we should build more nuclear power stations
His view was that we’ve missed that boat and we are now firmly in the Anthropocene with all its attendant difficulties and that the irony is that it was largely due to the “green” movement that the political support for nuclear disappeared and is now only creeping back when it is too late.
Again, and without wishing to appear rude, a league table of ways in which our countries are respectively wrecking our environment is the very stuff that's at the heart of why we’ll never survive!
I think you can equally argue that it's used rhetorically as a convenient bit of green bashing to avoid the substantive issue of the need to move to renewables.