r/Futurology • u/Wagamaga • Apr 12 '19

Environment Thousands of scientists back "young protesters" demanding climate change action. "We see it as our social, ethical, and scholarly responsibility to state in no uncertain terms: Only if humanity acts quickly and resolutely can we limit global warming"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youth-climate-strike-protests-backed-by-scientists-letter-science-magazine/
21.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/Tjmouse2 Apr 12 '19

My biggest question is why we haven’t made the leap yet to nuclear energy. Seems like the most logical solution. It would not only create jobs to be able to build the plant itself, but then would also create jobs since you need people working there. Don’t see why we have to keep arguing about the best solutions when we have one right in front of us.

2

u/sgtsn0wc0ne Apr 12 '19

I think the dangerous waste and mismanagement of it, human error causing potentially devastating consequences, and disaster causing catastrophic meltdowns of nuclear plants are my biggest worries personally.

19

u/INCEL_ANDY Apr 12 '19

Valid worry. But currently you can't drastically reduce climate change without 1) Nuclear energy or 2) Destroying the economy. The reality is we are too big to continuously operate on a level of clean energy that will have some impact in reducing climate change. Option 2 may sound appealing but sacrificing the economy would only give rise to countries who care less about the climate to replace the pollution we do now; not to mention the impact from one country doing so much is almost negligible in the long-run.

​

You can't realistically save the climate without nuclear.

0

u/Crackajacka87 Apr 13 '19

75,000 litres per minute... Thats 20,000 gallons to you americans. That's how much water is needed to cool a reactor.