• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And also accepting oil money to fight against nuclear power. They were literally founded to spread the lie that nuclear isn’t green.

    Hell, you can look it up for yourself, they still take money from the Rockefeller Foundation.

    They have never been as blatantly owned by oil money as Friends of the Earth, which was founded by a man who hated nuclear much more than he hated oil company money.

    The current Rockefeller Foundation pretends to care about the environment. They even (partially) divested from oil company stocks a couple years ago.

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.

            Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can’t exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.

            Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.

            Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bud, that link specifically lists nuclear energy as being sustainable and green. Did you not understand that, or were you just hoping nobody would actually click on the link?

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            From the link

            The role of non-renewable energy sources in sustainable energy has been controversial. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar, but its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents.

            They’re literally explaining to you why the contraversy even exists, which is oil propaganda.

            Nuclear is green. It’s emissions are almost zero greenhouse gases and won’t contribute to global warming.