Nuclear is the worst option for the environment. Low level radiation emissions from the steam kill or mutate anything and everything. Massive leaks into the ocean from Fukushima and Soviet dumping of waste barrels in the arctic ocean have produced environmental damage that God only knows of. Recent historic increase in human cancer coincidently has increased with the rise of nuclear power usage. It is extremely difficult to measure the effects of nuclear since it permeates everything on such low volumes that it has no immediate damage but can produce mutations over decades and through generations. Human indifference has been the greatest downfall of nuclear, see Chernobyl, it continues to pollute the area decades later. Brainwashing politics aside, the only environmentally friendly option is coal, and it is the most efficient of the 3 fossil fuels. Nuclear takes much longer to be broken down by the environment than fossil fuels.
Carbon dioxide is used by plants to produce more oxygen and increase overall life on earth, we all know this. Coal is effectively buried sunshine from the dinosaur era due to mass extinction. Back then there was more life and larger animals because of higher oxygen content in the atmosphere, we are just restoring things to how they were by burning coal. People seem to think that increase temperatures will destroy the planet. It is so arrogant, we cannot destroy this planet, it has created everything that is here. It is a closed ecosystem; it simply adapts and regenerates itself as long as the sun keeps shining.
If increased temperatures were bad for the environment no one would ever build greenhouses to increase the temperature for their plants, which allows them to thrive. Ironically, they can't seem to predict the
local weather 2 weeks from now, but they have capability to pinpoint with decimal point accuracy what the
'global' average temperature rise will be 30 years from now. Hilarious!
True environmental focus would be to simply dump iron ore dust into the ocean. Which in turn feeds plankton and increases overall plant marine life, effectively capturing more carbon dioxide and processing it. They found that not much iron ore dust would be needed to do this. It is like what happens with the dust blown from the African continent into South America to feed all the life of the vast amazon rainforest. This has been tried in Canada but was shut down with force by the government. Likely due to the fact that there is no way to make money off people by doing this simple inexpensive thing.
The problem is the smog that concentrated coal burning creates which damages immediate life, especially people, cut down trees that are not there anymore to absorb the emissions. Too much urbanisation has done its damage. Think of a volcanic eruption, it kills all things in its vicinity, but it fertilizes the area in the long run and allows for even more life than before. Its not that coal burning is bad, it's that they are burning way too much in a concentrated area which creates this smog. It is the by-product of the pursuit of more than one needs. There is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. The motive of those who burn the coal is the same as those who call for its abolishment, it is self-focus. Albeit the climate activists ironically still use plenty of fossil fuel derived comforts while at the same time calling for its end.
Excess is such an integral part of the western capitalism that people forget where we have come from. It seems to be a birth right to have a car, electricity, plastics, abundant food and all the other fossil fuel derived comforts. It won't be until we go back to pre-industrial life that people will start to appreciate what we have today, and inevitably regret their abuse of the privileges, or if it is a longer generational shift, they will despise those who abused it before them.
(4) The highly controversial plan to stop climate change | Russ George for Heretics - YouTube
(20min delay)