@Forester to Lemmy [email protected]English • 2 years agoWe can do all three things at onceimagemessage-square230fedilinkarrow-up1879
arrow-up1784imageWe can do all three things at once@Forester to Lemmy [email protected]English • 2 years agomessage-square230fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-6•2 years agoBut its also possible without nuclear waste. You are just pushing the problems with the waste to the future generations.
minus-squareatro_citylinkfedilink6•2 years agoThere needs to be a future generation to push it onto first…
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink0•2 years agoAgreed, the future generations already have enough problems. Thats why we should invest into stuff that brings solutions and does not create problems.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-1•2 years agoNo, money is the problem. If nuclear wasnt that expensive then sure, go for it.
minus-squareatro_citylinkfedilink0•2 years agoMoney a problem? We have individuals with more money than entire cities and companies with more money than entire nations. Money is not the problem.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•2 years agoYes because nuclear plants are so expensive which means electricity price will go up for the non rich people. Unless of course they use tax money to bring down the cost but that means you still paying with your taxes to make it more affordable.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-22 years agoTax the rich or better yet abolish them completely.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•2 years agoNo one who makes decisions so far has cared about future generations.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-22 years agoWell renewables are better for future generations. Maye you shuld push for that instead of an overly expensive water boiling maschine
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•2 years agoNearly every power plant ever, including green ones, is an overly expensive water boiling machine
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•2 years agoI’m actually pushing for degrowth. It’s the simplest path to ending oil use
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•2 years agoNuclear fuel came from the ground, it can go back in the ground. Future generations aren’t going to be impacted by nuclear waste storage.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-3•2 years agoWhat problem? If they’re stupid enough to dig it back up, they get what’s coming to em
But its also possible without nuclear waste. You are just pushing the problems with the waste to the future generations.
There needs to be a future generation to push it onto first…
Agreed, the future generations already have enough problems. Thats why we should invest into stuff that brings solutions and does not create problems.
You and your fearmongering is the problem
No, money is the problem. If nuclear wasnt that expensive then sure, go for it.
Money a problem? We have individuals with more money than entire cities and companies with more money than entire nations. Money is not the problem.
Yes because nuclear plants are so expensive which means electricity price will go up for the non rich people. Unless of course they use tax money to bring down the cost but that means you still paying with your taxes to make it more affordable.
Tax the rich or better yet abolish them completely.
No one who makes decisions so far has cared about future generations.
Well renewables are better for future generations. Maye you shuld push for that instead of an overly expensive water boiling maschine
Nearly every power plant ever, including green ones, is an overly expensive water boiling machine
I’m actually pushing for degrowth. It’s the simplest path to ending oil use
Nuclear fuel came from the ground, it can go back in the ground. Future generations aren’t going to be impacted by nuclear waste storage.
What problem? If they’re stupid enough to dig it back up, they get what’s coming to em