• Renegade@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That I don’t understand why we’re not doing more of those two things. Geo engineering seams to have strong opposition even within climate activist circles, and nuclear power use is on the decline.

    • Fosheze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nuclear is on the decline for the same reason we aren’t fighting climate change in other ways; it’s expensive. Building new nuclear powerplants is far more expensive up front than other methods of generating power so a new power plant won’t actually start seeing a return on investment for a decade at least. Shareholders now a days are allergic to anything that doesn’t see a return on investment within 3 months. Nuclear power plants also take much longer to build than other power plants. Don’t take this as me being antinuclear. I would have a nuclear power plant in my basement if I could; but nuclear power does have it’s disadvantages.

      As far as geoengineering goes it’s just that our governments are already dramatically mishandling the current situation. Do we really want to risk them making it much worse in new and exciting ways when we could just be lowering our CO2 output instead?

    • Zoot@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Nuclear costs too much, and nations can’t be trusted to not cut corners” is basically what it comes down to for Nuclear. As much as I will always always always be a support of Nuclear, humans probably won’t handle it properly. We haven’t in the past, and I wouldn’t trust that we’ve changed enough to handle it properly in the future.