Mike Shellenbergerحساب تایید شده

“If you needed proof that their words and promises were empty, this is it.” So true, Greta. So true. #END

Words matter, and you are a very influential young woman. Had you joined our pro-nuclear protests in Germany, and defended rather than attacked nuclear, Germany might still be operating the Phillipsburg nuclear plant, and abandoned the new Uniper coal plant

Last year you called nuclear “extremely dangerous, expensive & time-consuming” & unnecessary for most nations In December, Germany closed a nuclear plant that could have kept running for decades. Now, you’re criticizing it for replacing it with this new coal plant THREADhttps://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1265623676411617280 …

/END

While the Malthusian filmmakers of "Planet of Humans" and "Gasland" are aligned in their opposition to nuclear & nat gas, @MMFlint @OzzieZehner @jeffgibbstc to their credit are more honest than @joshfoxfilm on the environmental impacts of renewables

In 18th C., Thomas Malthus had to attack birth control to warn of overpopulation In 20th C., Malthusians had claim fossil fuels were scarce to oppose tractors & fertilizer for poor nations In 21st C, Malthusians have to lie about nat gas & nuclear to demand renewables/degrowth

There is a pattern. Malthusians raise the alarm about resource or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions.

Nuclear energy not only meant infinite fertilizer, freshwater, and food but also zero pollution and a radically reduced environmental footprint. And so some Malthusians argued that the problem with nuclear was that it produced *too much* cheap and abundant energy.

Nuclear energy thus created a serious problem for Malthusians and anyone else who wanted to argue that energy, fertilizer, and food were scarce, starting in the 1950s. Nuclear undermined the case that the world was on the brink of ecological collapse and resource scarcity.

The reason advocates of renewables have to attack nuclear is because its very existence exposes the two-part fraud that a) renewables are good for the environment and b) saving the environment requires de-growth (the true objective of renewables)

The supposed environmental benefits of renewables were always smoke and mirrors given their low energy densities which required huge increases in materials, mining, and land use compared to fossil fuels

To deliberately reduce the productivity of any of the key factors (e.g., labor, technology, energy, capital) is to deliberately "de-grow" the economy Make energy expensive, make everything expensive Degrowth was always the main purpose of renewables and the #GreenNewDeal

The fact that renewables are too energy-dilute to power industrial civilization is a feature, not a bug, for people who hate industrial civilization The creators of the Green New Deal in the 1970s were blunt that the low labor productivity of renewables was their primary benefit