|
@zackkanter | |||||
|
Difficult to logically reconcile 'climate change is a priority' with 'no nuclear power.'
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zack Kanter
@zackkanter
|
7. ruj |
|
This isn’t confusing. Politicians largely don’t care about impact and don’t make reasoned, principled decisions; they pick a party and then run polls to determine their stances. What we call a “politician” is a crowdsourced AI algorithm fed by polling data and played by an actor. twitter.com/CNNPolitics/st…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dave Madden
@TheDaveMadden
|
7. ruj |
|
Wow. Normally your tweets are smart. This is just canned, tired cynicism.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zack Kanter
@zackkanter
|
7. ruj |
|
Which politicians do you think exemplify consistent, principled decisionmaking?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dave Madden
@TheDaveMadden
|
7. ruj |
|
@SenWarren is about as principled as people come. @BetoORourke is not far behind. Nobody is always right, but there's a difference disingenuous pandering and having an opinion that is different than one's own.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dave Madden
@TheDaveMadden
|
7. ruj |
|
That would be an example of a reasonable and debatable difference of approach. Not of pandering. Calling her character into question over that is lazy and unrigorous.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mike Solana
@micsolana
|
8. ruj |
|
she’s either an idiot (she’s not) or a liar. closing the door to nuclear and abolishing fracking (!!!) is not a “reasonable difference of approach” to reducing carbon emissions. it will literally increase carbon emissions. she knows this. she doesn’t care.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Kevin Oleary
@kolearyUX
|
3. pro |
|
A smorgasbord of energy choices does not make sense. If we focus on one it can achieve the critical mass necessary to dominate the market and put an end to fossil fuel quickly.
Nuclear is too slow, too centralized and too expensive to win. It has to be solar.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Crispin Cowan
@CrispinCowan0
|
4. pro |
|
That sounds just about exactly wrong. In the absence of practical fusion power, a smorgasbord if power sources is just about the only thing that could work. Evidence:
1. All the green sources have timely limitations, like night time.
2. We have always used a smorgasbord of power
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matthew Tripoli
@IdeasEnergy
|
8. ruj |
|
I personally liked Booker’s response on this issue. However I think Warrens response is pretty logical if you assume she’s thinking Vogtle and Sumner.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Onlyme
@Onlymehere9
|
3. pro |
|
It's difficult to reconcile Unclear power as a priority when even with total global agreement it would arrive 10 years to late.
Fully operational? 2035 at best.
That's 15 years more fossil pollution and 15 more to offset, returning to current levels.
And don't mention the price.
|
||
|
|
||
|
stuart brainerd
@stuartbrainerd
|
2. pro |
|
please everyone retweet this and spread the message. This is as obvious as the nose on my face
|
||
|
|
||
|
Christopher Johnson
@Dream_Brother_
|
15. pro |
|
Addressing climate change by creating more radioactive waste isn't a great answer.
How many "swimming pools" are required to cool spent fuel rods? How many concrete bunkers are required to house radioactive waste?
|
||
|
|
||