This is interesting:
Robin Harper, the co-leader of the Greens, said the arrangement laid the foundations for "progressive new politics" in Scotland.
He
added: "These constructive discussions have identified many shared
objectives, including blocking nuclear power, tackling climate change
and extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament."
Even the IPCC has stated that nuclear power is part of fighting climate change.
Nuclear is the classic example of something that looks great if you have one particular aim in mind, but isn’t really once one sees the big picture.
It uses uranium that has to be mined, shipped, processed and then disposed of; so although energy generated from nuclear power might not exude CO2, overall it might not be so great.
Tim adds: We’ve been through this endlessly around here. Over the total cycle nuclear emits around and about the same CO2 as wind power and hydro, about half of solar.
They also say that GM crops for bio-fuel are a big no-no too.
This leaves the obvious question: how seriously do they take global warming?
“how seriously do they take global warming?”
Interesting question.
I can understand why biofuel isn’t taken seriously; in a book called ‘The Party’s Over’, a guy called Richard Heinberg calculated that for the USA to get the same amount of energy from ethanol as it currently gets from oil, the whole of the lower 48 would need to be turned into a wheatfield.
Greens are politicins; I guess power’s the thing.
“Over the total cycle nuclear emits around and about the same CO2 as wind power and hydro, about half of solar.”
And the major difference between nuclear, wind and hydro is? You’ don’t need to bury the wind and the water in caves for 10,000 years.
Leave a Reply