Maybe more like:
It´s unbelivable, that in our so called civilized world, people and companies are allowed to lie however they want and still don’t get serious punishments (something like “only water and dry bread until the end of the liers life”).
Everyone is allowed to have her/his opinion, even if it’s a wrong one. But if this person actually knows the truth and still says the opposite, then it’s another story.
I’m not sure that’s the spin. By sustainable it means helping to sustain or slow down the climate temperature increase. Things are sustainable at a cost, and no one wants to pay, hence we exploit plants, other animals and poor people to re-fashion sunlight water and minerals to our changing wants.
Sustaining what we want is what it means, the cost is another matter.
Green is almost a swear word it has been abused so much, after all it’s just a colour.
Totally understandable, humans thrive through power over others and if you can get something by lying and deceiving that’s considered more civilised than taking by force,
The issue is that the more powerful have acquired more power tools and weapons to sustain themselves and deceit is the major tool especially when it comes to such a high use of words over electronic information.
Try being honest and you will have try and live alone
But being “civilized” is not only covering up bloody fights for power by deceit and other tricks.
And a true democracy has one basic need: Voters, which are well educated and well informed.
And every manipulated information you get by other people deceptions brings us further and further away from the real idea behind democracy.
So, the situation right now with “lying is just part of the big game” is extremely far away from what I would call “civilized”.
Or how can you explain even the many wars still going on, where everyone involved (from politician to weopon producer to influencers in the media) can lie however they want?
If, for example, Putin wasn´t allowed to lie and would have been punished for it by the Russian population, then the war in the Ukraine would never have happened.
The same is true, of course, for most other wars, which includes the wars we and our friends (USA, France, Turkey and so on) are involved in.
It seems this is quite a discussion about the news article last posted, and sure it may provoke some opinions, but they cannot be discussed further here then where else it could be asked. Hardly worth a new topic as the Green argument arises fairly often.
One large topic would be unwieldy, and multiple topics would be crass.
So my last words will have to be.
From some perspectives Putin isn’t lying, from some he is and for many I imagine they have no idea was he’s talking about or doing.
Sadly even the so called democracy has to have rules and bodies that sanction people who don’t abide, by prison and death in extremes, democracy is a civilised anarchy where power rules.
It is sustainable. If you look at the climate impact of nuclear energy, its much better than “SHELL, EXXON, MOBIL, CHEVRON” and whatever Putin poops out but they’ve effectively marketed against nuclear energy with their FUD. If we’d have invested in nuclear energy earlier, we’d be less reliant on all of the previously mentioned scoundrels.
For the examples you mentioned, Chernobyl was a failure of the USSR system (on top of a design failure), and Fukushima should not have been build on that location which is partly hindsight 20/20.
We still have nuclear reactors anyway, even in Benelux.
And these campaigns they are a pattern. The paper/wood/clothes industry went against hemp previous century, the opioid industry markets against CBD oil, the car industry had FUD against electric cars, and probably the tobacco industry was also involved in campaigns against vaping or smoking cessation medicine.
There is always a problem, which wasn’t discovered (or actually covered up) by the people, whose wanted to build the nuclear plants.
For every nuclear plant they are doing a risk assessment, and the nuclear risk assessment of Japan is not particularly known for being bad or on a lower level than ours.
And exactly like in Europe, too, they will say:
“Building this power plant here is at least 99,9% secure!”
And yeah, in case of Fukushima that especially big typhoon was inside that 0,1%.
This can happen everywhere and with every nuclear plant. And, in case of maybe the old and almost broken nuclear plants France has close to the German border, the risk might even be on 0,3% (or more).
And what did Murphy say?
“What can go wrong, goes wrong.”
And I also want to add:
“Give it enough time (can be days, years or even centuries) and even the smallest possibility bigger than Zero (multiplied by the quantity of power plants and such) and you’ll get your big accident for sure. It’s not a question of “if” it happens, but “when” it happens.”
This is my personal opinion:
I prefer, for example 10 windmills falling down during a storm and maybe even hitting something or someone, instead of having one nuclear plant having a big accident within 1.000 km (air distance → pretty much all of Europe) of me.
Its more than 99,9%. But even the Sun isn’t 100% secure …
The thing with Chernobyl was the ridiculous Soviet system (bureaucracy, authority, incompetency, and webs of lies) in combination with a design flaw with the reactor. We don’t have such in Western Europe. The current Western NPPs are getting security checks regularly.
If you take the one in Zaporizjzja, the largest in Europe; it was secure. A disaster there would also be a man-made disaster. And its winding down since the start of the escalation of the war, so even in the event of a man-made disaster the effects are going to be relatively minor. Oh, and it will have a NATO response if Russia dares such.
Fukushima is the only major non-man-made disaster, and there’s no proof other NPP would suffer a similar fate. After Fukushima, all NPPs were carefully audited for such.
Meanwhile, something like windmills are causing damage to birds and insects. And wind energy isn’t replacing fossil fuels. It is fossil fuels, coals and gas in Germany cause the left fell for the propaganda FUD by Putin & Co. Woohoo, now Germany was even more reliant on Putin and his cronies. Well done!
Its also questionable if the Earth would be better off with or without humanity, if you look at the ecosystem at Chernobyl, so there’s that too.
The thing is not that nothing is 100% secure, the thing is that you need to learn from your mistakes (we do), and that you need scientists with a clue in key positions (we do).
a big accident within 1.000 km (air distance → pretty much all of Europe) of me.
Air distance is BS; it’d depend on the wind direction and speed of that particular day.
Isn’t it quite a claim to say:
“There was a problem because of this and this, but that will never happen on our side, because our people working with and checking on nuclear plants are … (not Russians? Gods or another kind of perfect beings? Psychics, which can see the future and can prevent even problems nobody did think about before?)”
Every nuclear plant is “secure” (in den eyes of the owner and security testers of that country) until the point in time, where it isn’t secure anymore. This is true for absolutely every nuclear plant.
It’s like you are saying “all countries (if there is no war on the world for a single day) are peaceful countries”. That’s only true until one of these starts a war or gets attacked.
Your arguments pretty much are based on luck:
If things would have escalated quicker, then the fallout wouldn’t be minor.
Another thing, which strongly relies on luck. And even if I’m lucky - that doesn’t need to be the same for million other people, which have the bad luck to live in wind direction.
Yes, because humans are not gods and can’t know everthing. Or why do you think people say “this was unexpected”?
But in case of nuclear plants in the middle of densely populated countries, the possible worst case is so insanely terrible, I don’t even want to think about that.
Did you seriously just say something like “Around Chernobyl are green trees and many animals, so blowing up some nuclear plants isn’t really bad after all”?
1.) That’s just your claim.
2.) If you add solar energy, hydrogen production, hydrogen gas power plants, then it will replace the fossil fuels.
What do they want to to then? Throwing bombs on Moscow? And getting nuclear bombs shot back?
Let’s hope there will never be a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.
I moved the whole discussion to a new topic since it was getting really off-topic and the interesting articles topic is rather for a non-cluttered sharing of interesting links.
Feel free to suggest a different title.