• Astrealix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can’t fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

    • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

      That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

    • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

      That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

      • Astrealix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never said we can’t do also wind, solar, thermal, and hydro; in fact we have to do all of them. But, hydro isn’t possible in most places (and also makes “a part of the world uninhabitable” too — look at how much the Three Gorges Dam displaced, for example), nor is geothermal. And wind and solar are inconsistent — great as part of it, but they can’t be the entirety of the grid, unless you want the entire country to go dark on a cloudy day, cuz we simply can’t make batteries store that much.