Millions of investments for promoting mixed of renewables and providing public relations cover of funneling research and education. Should we take a second look at science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions?
Facts or not?
- producing clean energy over land space has indirect impacts (if not, worst) over the longer term for our planet's biodiversity.
- environmental and health impacts (including safety) are more widespread even in the case of widespread renewables as a primary solution to remedy climate change.
- we will be living at smarter built cities, with increase of amount energy use. How are we truly heading in terms of energy efficiency for clean environment?
Debate with MICS
Scientists and conservationists must begin communicating more inform decisions about renewables, that includes nuclear.
The future of Nuclear Energy in a carbon-constrained world (a published MIT report and dialogue) sugests that nuclear power can be a low-carbon energy mix, and cutting costs by standardizing production. There is much for us to understand about renewables, and finding a comon print to what technology is useful and more accessible now.
Nuclear may not
bring renewables capitalist or environmentalist together, nuclear is another kind of community.
Then again, the economics and politicians (a more universal) community, gives us a space to understand better the potential of nuclear, and with top chemist and top engineers - we can also understand the irreversible consequences. On another hand, in the case of emergency - smarter investments means reducing the possibility of facing toxicating impacts far greater than any other kind of other proposed solution.
With a global economic outlook - can we strike a middle? Indeed, a balance of interest is at stake.
Dialogues such as this, allow us to change our framework, and give better insight to the effectiveness of other instruments that plays a role to what "environmentalist" or "climate justice" tries to achieve.
Then again, why blame politicians? Aside from the democratic movement, what action are we truly helping than just speaking?
Are we managing our waste effectively?
Are we actually, needing to live in this capitalism world?
Do we guarantee our sustainable ethics, is also preached by our family, friends, and society?
How far socio-environmentalism has successfully penetrate most consumers?
Can we decouple from our economic interest, (truly, how sustainable are we? and can we guarantee each citizen is living our life with low carbon emission?)
We have noises everywhere.
How many of us, continue to save energy consumption with the primary aim: (1. environment? than 2. cost)?
How can we assert more strength for environmentalist action?
We have to overcome the power struggle of every economic interest by different "human activities". Fossil fuel, nuclear, and non-renewables still populates a huge percentage % of carbon emitters. Scientist can at least agree "toxifying impacts" as well. We can impose policies. We can also hear and act on advocate. All at the same time, our system of governance benefit from less counter-productive options. If M.Shellenberger had also stated: we will be living in a city (still) uses more energy. Can then we decouple? Or shall we move into nature?
Do you know what is and how is the remaining larger % of carbon polluters (in this timeframe)?
Where economics actually 'rely upon'?