ziproot

When I read the first part, I thought "which megacorporation?"

Renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, this is still progress.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/no-climate-change-wont-kill-the-planet-but-itll-kill-plenty-of-people/

Yes, renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, declaring nuclear energy illegal means destroying functioning power plants that have very low emissions. We should wait to destroy nuclear energy until we can replace it with renewable energy, and we should not be having to replace nuclear energy until we've replaced fossil fuels and biofuel.

EDIT: Basically, we should start out by getting rid of* what is most polluting (agriculture/industry emissions), and then working our way down from there (coal, natural gas, oil, biofuel, and nuclear, in that order).

*Agriculture emissions can be offset by transitioning to a more vegan diet. I don't call it plant-based because that excludes fungi and bacteria that we also consume.

I agree to everything you just said. It appears like someone else already discussed what I said in a comment thread below, so I apologize for bringing it up again.

EDIT: What I meant by agreeing with you was that I agree that climate change will not be solved with nuclear or renewables alone. I did not mean that using nuclear energy and renewable energy does not have any effect on solving climate change.

I am fine with nuclear energy as a temporary solution since climate change is such a big problem, and we need all we have to deal with it. Once that problem is dealt with, then we can continue to ramp up low-emissions renewable energy. I think we should wait to declare nuclear illegal until climate change is solved.

It's especially bad when open source projects use a proprietary service like Discord.

Network effect, basically.

I wonder why Exxon has been denying climate change /s https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to have emissions peak in 3 years if we want to cut it in half in 7. We just need to actually do it.

https://libreddit.spike.codes/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/rqg2y0/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/

While it is generally true that completely free* providers make money off of your personal data, some of them are run by not for profits and are funded by donations. An example of this is disroot.org.

*As in, not freemium

Renewable energy has little to no pollution. EDIT: Excluding biofuel which is not a solution to pollution or climate change.