Nothing. What it means for the people on the other hand, is misery.. power shortages, heating issues, etc. Until they have an actual realistically executable plan, all they’re doing is wasting time, resources and just creating new problems elsewhere.
Plus it’s all about politics and them being in power, they don’t actually care about the climate.. look at them, they’re all over 40-50+ .. they will die long before anything really bad would happen.
Nuclear in 2000: 170TWh
Coal in 2020: 135TWh.
Had you kept your nukes on, coal would be mostly gone by now.
(reminder: the last nukes will be closed by the end of 2022)
In 2014, the Minister of Energie begged Sweden to keep their german coal power plant running in [those words](https://www.altinget.se/misc/SigmarGabriel.pdf): “However, we also strongly believe that we cannot simultaneously quit nuclear energy and coal- based power generation”.
Bad things. Greens are anti nuclear and nuclear is the best way to fight climate change.
3 comments
Nothing. What it means for the people on the other hand, is misery.. power shortages, heating issues, etc. Until they have an actual realistically executable plan, all they’re doing is wasting time, resources and just creating new problems elsewhere.
Plus it’s all about politics and them being in power, they don’t actually care about the climate.. look at them, they’re all over 40-50+ .. they will die long before anything really bad would happen.
Nuclear in 2000: 170TWh
Coal in 2020: 135TWh.
Had you kept your nukes on, coal would be mostly gone by now.
(reminder: the last nukes will be closed by the end of 2022)
In 2014, the Minister of Energie begged Sweden to keep their german coal power plant running in [those words](https://www.altinget.se/misc/SigmarGabriel.pdf): “However, we also strongly believe that we cannot simultaneously quit nuclear energy and coal- based power generation”.
Bad things. Greens are anti nuclear and nuclear is the best way to fight climate change.