Nothing? We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete and nuclear power widespread.
I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.
Source? Nuclear power is highly unpopular and hanging on by a thread in the United States. Our reactors are in disrepair and do not make a profit without subsidies.
Nuclear power is shrinking with no new plants being built and old ones being decommisioned. So spreading is definitely not the word I would have used either.
Micro nuclear reactors are being built not far from me. I expect nuclear to grow substantially in the US at least in the midwest. My state is already green with many windmills, solar farms, hydro plants. The only thing they have not explored very far yet is geothermal and there is plenty of opportunities for that here too.
I'm skeptical that micro nuclear reactors will ever be economically viable (without subsidies) for grid scale power production. There are huge economies of scale in fission power once you account for labor costs, site security, and thermodynamic efficiency. Bigger is better.
Micro reactors are more suited to isolated areas disconnected from the grid.
Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing, every now and again we get good ones.
For all their flaws (and there are many, don't trust a Tory) our government in the UK has done a good-ish job with environmental policy. Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels, science etc.
> Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing
The biggest flaw of democracy is that politicians need votes, for them and their party, and getting them is their main objective. They do unpopular things, but make immense efforts to spin it as desirable.
Climate change will be properly addressed until the general population suffers from it, and threatens to vote for someone who actually does something. At that point, an emergency state could be declared and the votes won't be as valuable.
Was Trump's policy towards nuclear bad? I seem to recall that his admin green-lit in-country efforts that were effectively on ice for quite a while - TREAT, ARDP, the VTR, micro/small reactors, Vogtle approval.
And an opening statement from Forbes article in Dec 2020: "By most accounts, President-elect Joe Biden will continue President Trump’s nuclear energy legacy — to aggressively develop U.S. technology for export to the international market within five to seven years." https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/12/01/biden...
The negativity is needed because too many people think the sky is not falling. The can has been sufficiently kicked and the problem has become a fact of life. There hasn't been mass mobilizations for climate policy in 30 years. The oil barons won.
Yet people still rail against an EV company because "tweets" and continue to suck on big auto that held us back on purpose because their factories were built for ICE engines, and ya'know, cheated on emission tests.
But no, getting angry and emotional is not the answer. We're reducing our emissions, mostly thanks to natural gas (fracking) displacing coal, but part due to alternatives like wind and solar. Some states like Texas run on wind for the full day at times, only tapping into non-renewables during peak loads.
We've made great progress and some people need to calm down or they look crazy (some are), diminishing their cause.
Some people seem to treat "green" as a religion. The sin you're born with is your carbon footprint. You can do everything and it's still not enough. You have to flagellate yourself, you need to convert everyone else to live your lifestyle, you need to give this and that up. You need to live without electricity, without transportation, without meat, etc. Some positions are counter productive to the cause or are simply useless (banning straws instead of sanctioning foreign countries/companies for dumping plastic waste that they buy from us)
Be a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Clean the Earth, make it better, but stop with the doomsday speeches and flagellation.
It's as if there aren't multiple issues at play. There can be securities fraud, China level spying on your driving, terrible quality issues (the Model S), and all sorts of other negative things that contrast the good that is Tesla.
Spending 30k on a car is a huge financial decision and some people just can't afford to take that decision lightly no matter how much they believe in climate change.
For context I own a fair bit of Tesla stock and am a big fan. But I am hesitant to buy one myself, as much as I'd love to.
The reason people go overboard worrying about their carbon footprint is because fossil fuel companies have a strategy of making global warming 'our' fault, and a consequence of individual action instead of recognizing it's too large of a problem for us to tackle individually. We need government regulation in the form of a carbon tax. Want to drive a dodge viper to work? Knock yourself out. Your carbon taxes will help fund a few KW clean nuclear power.
Ah yes, more taxes to pay for the taxes and over regulation on nuclear.
The fossil fuel companies that you think are out to get you are the only ones actually reducing emissions. Fracking gave access to so much natural gas it displaced coal, reducing emissions year over year.
Those energy companies also invest in wind farms, solar, everything. The gov gives out taxpayer money like hotcakes for "green" solutions, why not take advantage?
the drop in emissions we need to not pass 1.5C of warming is not within the time frame of construction/operation of full nuclear power (for the entire world, not just the US).
Electric cars exist to (temporarily?) save the auto industry. The decrease we get in purely tailpipe emissions does not offset the supporting infrastructure, their construction, and the sprawl that they demand.
Even Exxon is not putting 1.5C targets (where even then a lot of real people die) in their "sustainability" reports anymore. Everything needs to stop at 2030 at the latest, and I personally have no hope that that is possible.
Not even hitting the brakes. We're over the cliff and people are still arguing over whether we should ease on the accelerator a bit and if so, how much.
I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.