realistic ecology wrote:... it is a question of awakening, shaking, the spirits which purr blissfully in the comfort of the well-meaning dogmatism of an old ecology unrealistic.
There is a problem urgent, the global climate change already underway: droughts, heat waves, floods, fires and hurricanes, and above all, the situation is deteriorating from year to year.
Faced with this problem immediate, pressing, is it realistic to oppose possible risks nuclear waste in thousands of years ? (If it weren't as important, we would a sketch comical). Yet this is the discourse of old ecology, unrealistic.
However the sketch, you do it to us ... rather sad ... What is realistic for you is to do in the immediacy, the urgency, under the pressure, now I have a "solution", tomorrow ... it's a concept, for those who think "old". You know, those idiots who analyze the real consequences before handing over one more layer of nuclear, dangerous, inept and mercantile non-solution.
A solution would be to drastically reduce all of our energy mismanagement, be it Carbon, Nuclear, etc.
The comparison of CO2 and nuclear waste is a vast mercantile hogwash.
realistic ecology wrote:It turns out that a certain number of countries are developing low carbon energy which can massively produce non-intermittent energy. In short, countries that build nuclear power plants. This is particularly true of China.
Now those who claim to be old ecology can think of answering this question:
Should we go and demonstrate in front of the Chinese embassy so that it closes all its nuclear projects?
Or should we congratulate China on reducing its CO2 emissions by replacing coal with nuclear?
I know, it's disturbing.
What is disturbing is that those who claim to be from the "new" school see themselves locking those of the "old school" into completely nazi questions?
- The old school should be reduced to completely useless demonstrations in front of an unusual place, totally uncorrelated from the subject, without any bearing on the sovereign acts of a distant country which royally cares not only for public opinion coming from a foreign country. ...
- The "new" school and China are trying at all costs to make us believe that replacing Carybde by Scylla will bring something other than bad immediate solutions.
Nuclear accidents are local, limited.
Global warming is global.
Accidents counted, nuclear, is the least dangerous energy.
"Local and limited" .... a radius of 40 km evacuated to Fukushima. In the middle of the desert, the impact would remain "limited", but close to a large city ....
“Global warming is global” and greed is widespread.
"Accidents counted, nuclear is the least dangerous energy", a free statement which does not take into account the reality of technology and its hazards, terrorism, wars, the recklessness / irresponsibility of our "elites" and lobbyists.