Links tagged “nuclear”
- Alex Epstein’s Earth Day truth: Fossil fuels make Earth BETTER – ‘World has never been a better place for human beings to live’
Epstein: "Fossil fuels are making Earth a better and better place by providing uniquely low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people--and are needed by billions more."
Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century.
Solar and wind only provide electricity (20% of energy use)—and they don't even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don't replace reliable power plants—they add to the cost of reliable power plants.
3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking.
The world needs to continue and expand its massive use of fossil fuels, while ensuring we have the freedom necessary for truly cost-effective alternatives to emerge. E.g., we need to decriminalize reliable, non-carbon nuclear energy."
- BONKERS: The Atlantic Cries Nuclear War Is a ‘Climate Problem’
- The Atlantic: ‘On Top of Everything Else, Nuclear War Would Be a Climate Problem’ – Laments even ‘nuclear winter…would not reverse the effect’ of man-made warming
The Atlantic Staff Writer Robinson Meyer: "Even a 'minor' skirmish would wreck the planet" - "I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively 'minor' exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planet’s climate in enormous and long-lasting ways. ... And even though the world would get cooler, the nuclear winter resulting from a full-blown global conflict (or even 'nuclear fall,' as some researchers prefer) would not reverse the effect of what we might morbidly call 'traditional' human-caused climate change. ...
If several years of gasoline- and diesel-fueled conventional military operations followed the global destruction, then the permanent consequences for the climate system would be even worse. That would also be true if society tried to rebuild by undertaking a fossil-powered reconstruction—and that would very likely be the case."
#
But wait! Which is it?! Huffington Post 2011: Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming? - Nuclear war is a bad thing. Right?
- Shellenberger: The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin – ‘While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled & doubled nuclear energy production’
- Alex Epstein’s ‘Energy Freedom Platform’: ‘End preferences for unreliable electricity’ – ‘Decriminalize nuclear energy’ – ‘End climate fascism’
- Energy Is Now The Most Important Issue In The World
- Shellenberger: Why Greta’s Climate Panic Failed – Her ‘political influence has never been lower’ as EU labels nuclear & natural gas ‘sustainable’
- Watch: Walter Cronkite on CBS News in 1980 cites U.S. Senate Three Mile Island report on how the media was guilty of ‘alarming what it called an ill-informed an easily frightened public’
- The Real Threat to Banks Isn’t From Climate Change. It’s From Bankers.
Michael Shellenberger: A major new staff report from the New York Federal Reserve Bank throws cold water on the over-heated rhetoric coming from activist investors, bankers, and politicians. “How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?” asks the title of the report by three economists. “Not very,” they answer in the first sentence of the abstract.
The reason is because “weather disasters over the last quarter century had insignificant or small effects on U.S. banks’ performance.” The study looked at FEMA-level disasters between 1995 and 2018, at county-level property damage estimates, and the impact on banking revenue.
- COP FLOP: None of UN’s criteria for climate summit success none were achieved
William R. Hawkins: With fossil fuels generating some two-thirds of world energy production (59 percent of U.S. energy, with nuclear providing another 20 percent), all the talk about transitioning away to other sources must be flexible. Hence the term at COP26 was expanded to “unabated” fossil fuels, which means projects that do not deploy technology to absorb the carbon they produce.
China did not sign that statement ending government financing of unabated fossil fuel projects. ... While the United States listed actual objectives, China only listed aspirations. For example, the United States set a goal to reach 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 whereas China only said it would “phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.”
