• Mrs_deWinter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    We can do both.

    If you have a set amount of money and resources to invest renewables are almost exclusively the better choice. Investing in nuclear instead means it will take even longer for us to wean off fossiles. That’s why it’s so useful for the oil lobby to support nuclear.

    • maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      We don’t have a set amount of money and resources, fundamentally.

      We have an abundance of food, water, and shelter.

      We have a lot of smart people who are currently spending their lives making money on made up markets and apps.

      We have plenty of steel, concrete, and any other resources that would be in contention.

      When it comes to money, if we raised taxes just a little, we’d be fine. I’m kind of an MMT person, but point is, we could get money, print it, tax it, etc. as it’s an abstraction on top of the other things above.

      The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians. They say we can’t raise taxes and we can’t increase deficit spending so they can get us to fight. And I guarantee you, if we all agreed to do nuclear, they would flip the script and start investing in renewables, because what they want is to kill momentum. After all, who do you think was behind all the scare mongering after three mile island?

      I don’t want to kill momentum for renewables, but I want to start building it for nuclear at the same time.

      We can do both.