this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
317 points (93.2% liked)

World News

32163 readers
1214 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that's also very much part of American branding.

Where are my renewable bros at? Tell me this is bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Chernobyl had such a far-reaching environmental impact. Beyond even the radioactive pollution stuff, it scared everyone away from nuclear power and back to fossil fuels for energy production. I sometimes wonder where we'd be wrt CO2 levels if nuclear energy adoption had continued along the same trend as it was before Chernobyl. Would we have had substantially more time to mitigate climate change? Maybe we'd have been in the same boat (or an equally bad boat) due to other factors; maybe it would have stymied renewables even more due to already having a readily available and well-established alternative to fossile fuels in nuclear power. Idk. But if someone wrote one of those what-if alternative history novels about the subject, I'd read the heck out of it.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Imagine if every oil spill was taken as seriously

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

Wow. Well fucking said, my friend. You are absolutely right.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Or every preventable death from coal.

Or all the deaths resulting from our decision to rely on Russia for energy.