Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

980

I'm paraphrasing Michael Shellenberger, author of .

He made an excellent point on Tucker's show last week. The climate change narrative encourages more government control. It gives opportunity for government money to be funneled into your crony friend's hands. Why would the political elite want to end that?

So they keep pushing wind and solar power which is a pipedream. If they were serious about climate change, they wouldn't be flying on private jets to summits. They would be building nuclear power plants.

I'm paraphrasing Michael Shellenberger, author of ["Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All"](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50173134-apocalypse-never). He made an excellent point on Tucker's show last week. The climate change narrative encourages more government control. It gives opportunity for government money to be funneled into your crony friend's hands. Why would the political elite want to end that? So they keep pushing wind and solar power which is a pipedream. If they were serious about climate change, they wouldn't be flying on private jets to summits. They would be building nuclear power plants.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (43).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Free Nuclear! It's not illegal to run a generator in your back yard. It wasn't illegal to build the early ones either. The other reason why you don't have nuclear is because the freest parts of the market don't have access to it. If it did it wouldn't matter if it wrecked a climate change racket people would do it anyway. It would get used where it made sense until the technology became tamed and cheaper at which point it would make sense to use in more places and so on.

If there were no laws against selling uranium on ebay, you would have nuclear energy. Don't find it realistic that the refined stuff would make it there because of the scale of operation needed to make it? Great. That means people would be making and using beta-cells, which are more safe anyway. The "practicality" problem and the "safety" problem cancel each other out. The only people who would use the refined stuff in a way that could produce nuclear waste (standard reactor) would be people with the means to do it safely.