←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 4 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.413s | source
Show context
unchocked ◴[02 Apr 21 18:59 UTC] No.26674713[source]▶
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?

replies(5): >>26674813 #>>26675347 #>>26675366 #>>26675456 #>>26678303 #
1. bigbob2 ◴[02 Apr 21 20:02 UTC] No.26675347[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>26675811 #>>26676924 #
2. unchocked ◴[02 Apr 21 20:48 UTC] No.26675811[source]▶
But after 1988, everyone knew.
3. manicdee ◴[02 Apr 21 23:20 UTC] No.26676924[source]▶
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."

replies(1): >>26681368 #
4. bigbob2 ◴[03 Apr 21 14:31 UTC] No.26681368[source]▶
> 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."