Reply #33: I think you've got that backwards [View All]

Your claim appears to be that environmentalism is defined by policy, not environmental impact: So, Greenpeace's plan to build over 1,000 GW of new natural gas generation is environmental simply because it's not nuclear. Likewise, it's OK to keep using coal beyond 2050 because it's not nuclear: The extra CO₂ doesn't matter - it's a just a side effect of being that shade of green.

Sadly, that's horseshit. GP's plan to reduce fossil fuel energy from 11,015TWh in to 9,491TWh in 2050 - just a 13.8% decrease - would have a massive effect on the environment.

If you actually give a shit about the environment, I would expect you to show some slight concern about their scenario. On the other hand, If you only care about being anti-nuclear, you'll love this plan: Sure, there's no fish, coral, forests, icecaps or tundra left, but I guess that's a small price to pay, right?

Greenpeace don't 'do' 2060, of course, because having burned over 90% of the world's gas by 2050 we would have a world destroyed by climate change and no gas left for energy, fertiliser or plastics (and therefore solar panels, oddly enough).

That's your idea of a great future, is it?