...about "cleaning up" the cost of climate change, they're still full of their usual selective attention morally vapid bullshit.
The New York Times has always been an anti-nuke paper, and like most anti-nukes, is very selective in its attention.
The glee in the era of climate change, for which selective attention is responsible, is appalling.
There is not one anti-nuke, not one, who cares a whit for the cost of climate change. Can climate change's damages be repaired with 43 billion dollars, 43 trillion dollars? Do mindless bean counters even care?
There is no amount of money that can clean the effects of anti-nuke shit for brains who routinely confuse journalists with engineers, and whine incessantly.
France built its reactors in the 1970's. It's fifty years later. The problem with nuclear reactors is that they last too long. These reactors were built before the explosion of modern metallurgy, about which I know something as my son, with whom I frequently converse, just obtained a Master's degree around welding, and is taking the knowledge to a nuclear engineering program.
In the last 50 years, while trillions of dollars were squandered - there is no other word but "squandered" on the dangerous fossil fuel dependent so called "renewable energy" industry - France produced electricity without dumping dangerous fossil fuels in the atmosphere.
The trillions of dollars so squandered on so called "renewable energy" - most of it in this century - did nothing but to lead to the acceleration of climate change.
Last week, the weekly data showed an increase over just ten years ago, of 24.93 ppm:
Week beginning on June 12, 2022: 421.03 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.00 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.07 ppm
Last updated: June 20, 2022
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Of course, the hundreds of homeless people who died because trillions were spent on the useless solar and wind industry that was dependent on fossil fuels - they're burning coal in Germany right this fucking second - are the tip of the iceberg.
What's the odds that ethical shit for brains types will add the death toll of the failure of their trillion dollar idiot fantasies about the useless solar and wind industry to the loss of life resulting? I realize that the bourgeois anti-nuke types here don't give a shit about dead homeless people. but what happens when extreme heat kills their fellow head up the ass bean counters because there's no electricity because the wind isn't blowing? Will they give a shit when white people with Teslas in the driveway start dying from heat? Have they no interest in Pakistan, India, fucking Kansas?
I know what they won't do. They won't look in the mirror.
These are, after all, the same people who still whine 43 years later about Three Mile Island, are they not?
How many dead on the street people in Harrisburg PA over these last 43 years died from exposure to radiation.
The French will fix their reactors, and they will learn once again how to effectively and smoothly build new ones. Germany will not fix the atmosphere. Perhaps the French will get as good at building nuclear reactors as it as the Chinese are right now; they once led the world and clearly can do so again.
Fuck selective attention. Fuck bean counting. The fucking planet is dying, oh, and the wind turbines in Denmark don't last even 20 years on average.
The ethically void mentality of anti-nukes is disgusting. Fucking people are dying, and they want to call in accountants to cite in the NY Times.
= new reply since forum marked as read
