It was completely relevant to the discussion. That’s not a whataboutism.
Comment on 40% of US electricity is now emissions-free
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months agoAnd because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again…
Unrelated and a whataboutism.
Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 5 months ago
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He changed the topic from nuclear to coal.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s completely relevant to a discussion about renewable energy and meeting emission targets. What’s the benefit of having a higher renewable mix if your total GHG emissions are consistently going up?
Germany has generated more CO2 than it would have if it had kept nuclear technology, and that’s an indisputable fact.
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s like arguing why take chemo if it only makes you sicker in the short run. 🤔
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
To use your analogy, we don’t know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.
Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I’ll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.
There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we’d see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I’d be more than happy to read about it. If you’re going to argue that it’ll exist tomorrow, you’ll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I’d be happy to look at those.