Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Growth is what makes us rich enough to afford expensive environmental mitigation.
 help



It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?

It's not working for corals either. The rest of them will be dead in 10 or 15 years. And they are the ecosystem for 25% of the Ocean's species.

When is this expensive environmental mitigation going to turn the tide around?


> It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?

You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors? I think you will find that regulation actually stopped us from solving this problem.

> It's not working for corals either.

Imagine if we had much more nuclear power so we didn't produce enormous amounts of CO2! The corals would be in a much better position.

The "environmental movement" has been an anti-nuclear power movement that doesn't care about the environment since the beginning sadly. They've managed to harm the environment more than all nuclear accidents by several orders of magnitude.


> You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors?

There is no need to ban this because it (and reprocessing in general) is economically idiotic. It would be like saying government bans prevent companies from setting money on fire.

Dry cask storage is a quite acceptable and economical way to deal with nuclear waste. The demand that something permanent be done immediately reflects a desire to use waste as a lever against nuclear energy. Nuclear fans would do well not to fall into this trap and think immediate reprocessing is necessary or desirable.


Growth is also why we need expensive environmental mitigation.

On balance I still like growth and would rather have it than not. But let's be honest about it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: