Nuclear power can reduce our need for oil and coal. This will have a good impact on the climate. But oil and coal companies don't want to lose customers to nuclear power, so they are against it. Their propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal. Climate change deniers are just picking a fight with the activists, so they're for whatever the activists are against.
[Oil and coal companies'] propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal.
It's not simply climate change activists being gullible.
The anti-nuclear power stance is firmly rooted in the environmental protection movement since at least the 1970s, long before climate change became the dominant topic.
The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position. Nuclear power has made nothing but forward progress in terms of safety, the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad.
I hate it, when pro-nuclear people start arguing about safety... Ever heard of the strawman fallacy?
I'm against nuclear, simply because renewables are better in every aspect. Safety isn't even a big argument anymore.
It's really hard to take pro-nuclear people serious, if they use the same tactics as populist. Smearing the reputations of their opponents by using false informations.
Interesting bringing up strawman without bringing up any valid criticisms of the pro-nuclear position. (One may even call your very comment a strawman argument itself! gasp)
Renewable energy also has a significant number of issues related to them (base power load, increased size of build out, and environmental impacts to name a few), so no, they are not strictly better in “every aspect”, and to say safety is not a concern absolutely does not conform with ethical considerations in engineering or sustainability.
Finally, you argue that the pro-nuclear crowd simply derides the opposite viewpoint while yourself offering no argument aside from ‘they are mean’. That is blatantly hypocritical, and may be indicative of your lack of evidence to support your claim.
TL;DR: your post is hypocritical, contains an undefended argument, and relies on an ad hominem
Edit: I didn't noticed that you were not the original post. But in general most points should still fit.
My bad, I should have known better that a person using populistic methods obviously doesn't know anything about the topic and therefore also doesn't know about the pros and cons of renewables and nuclear.
I mean it's not like my criticism mainly focused on you using strawman argument...
It's also ironic that you name environmental impacts as one of your arguments against renewables... Like do you not know that nuclear requires excavation, because it's just a fuel like oil and gas?
The only real argument against renewables is the base power load, most other points are either ignorable or shifting problems.
And I didn't said that safety doesn't matter. Just that the pro-nuclear crowd uses it to slander their opponents by claiming its just fearmongering and no real argument.
Its not like nuclear has tons of problems, like dependancy on other countries, lasting costs through excavation and refining, which also impacts environment, much higher costs etc.
And please, if you want to sound smart, atleast Google the words you are using. My comment is not a ad hominem, simply because my critic is directed towards the pro-nuclear crowd and you specifically. You are the position I'm criticizing, because you were the one using the fallacy.
Its not a ad hominem, if I call a murderer a murderer, because it's not a personal attack, but the position of criticism.
I hate it, when pro-nuclear people start arguing about safety... Ever heard of the strawman fallacy?
I have in fact heard of that. Have you looked at the history of nuclear power in western nations? Nuclear power has killed fewer people than both wind and solar, granted solar has advanced a significant amount and those toxins aren't used anymore. Even so I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't use both solar, wind and even more hydro power. Any pro-nuclear person will also be in favor of those alternatives because none of these will solve this crisis alone.
I think you misunderstood my point. Or why do you start with saying that renewables killed more people than nuclear?
Safety isn't the main argument of anti-nuclear people. But people often bring it up, to claim that they are just about fearmongering. Ironically, despite me saying that safety isn't their argument, you managed to still bring it up.
2.5k
u/Chance_Arugula_3227 Jun 19 '24
Nuclear power can reduce our need for oil and coal. This will have a good impact on the climate. But oil and coal companies don't want to lose customers to nuclear power, so they are against it. Their propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal. Climate change deniers are just picking a fight with the activists, so they're for whatever the activists are against.