Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

Great news! France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, and it's a very plausible part of the solution.

Relatedly I've been thinking about how to compare the moral culpability of anti-nuclear activists for climate change to that of oil companies. Are sins of preventing beneficial action comparable to sins of taking harmful action? Do intentions offset effects?

Opens up a can of worms into how intent factors into culpability.

> Relatedly I've been thinking about how to compare the moral culpability of anti-nuclear activists for climate change to that of oil companies. Are sins of preventing beneficial action comparable to sins of taking harmful action? Do intentions offset effects?

Seems like knowledge could come into play here. Someone could have made the same argument about coal 150 to 200 years ago because the data didn't yet exist to suggest it was harmful. From their perspective, coal could have looked better than the alternatives. Not sure how culpable activists would be in that scenario, at least relative to fossil fuel companies of today which deliberately release disinformation to their own benefit.

If you're interested, that question is most commonly referred to in philosophy as the "trolley problem". [1]

It's actually a huge area of philosophical debate. So while the bad news is there's no straightforward answer -- instead there's deep disagreement among philosophers who think about exactly this for a living -- the good news is you could spend literal weeks learning about the arguments on both sides if you wanted to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Yes the French have a better system for nuclear. In the US the military can do anything nuclear they want.

But for civilian nuclear program it is all political. What did we spend on Yucca Mountain?

Chicago Bridge bungled their South Carolina reactor job so bad that Westinghouse had to take the job over from them. Complete shambles and Westinghouse had to sell their nuclear division to Toshiba. All one giant mess. The AP2000 NextGen reactor program is a failure. South Carolina plant never made it online. Busted budgets and nothing generating power. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/06/541582729/how-the-dream-of-am...

Stop being a negative Nancy, if france can do it we can do it. Who cares what the antinuke people think get some initiaives rolling and lets get going.

But after 1988, everyone knew.

It's better to watch these lectures instead: https://justiceharvard.org/ .

The trolley problem and other ethical issues are covered in "the good place" on Netflix in a very entertaining way.

Though this solution always gives me a chuckle - https://external-preview.redd.it/wO3QAQsLh2xklK3-ifXUdyEjaAS...

The climate effects of burning coal were well known in the scientific community as early as 1856 (Eunice Foote) or 1859 (John Tyndall).

Deliberate misinformation from fossil fuel companies has been around since at least 1991 when they published a film about climate change, "A Climate of Change."

Children have a very strong sense of fairness!

Ha! That video and "solution" brings to mind Kissinger's famous remarks regarding the Iran-Iraq war: "It's a pity they can't both lose."

In France the National Assembly voted (2015) that by 2025 only 50% of France's energy will be produced by nuclear plants. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

The main pertinent local project is an utter disaster, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_3

> The climate effects of burning coal were well known in the scientific community as early as 1856 (Eunice Foote) or 1859 (John Tyndall).

So about 150 to 200 years ago...

> Deliberate misinformation from fossil fuel companies has been around since at least 1991 when they published a film about climate change, "A Climate of Change."

Exxon has actively fought to hide the dangers of climate change since the early 1980s. I think the film you're referring to was called "A Climate of Concern."