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

    Both sound terrible.

    I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

    • Astrealix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        0
        arrow-down
        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 huh?

      • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.