Numbers don't lie.
Claiming that the trillions squandered on solar and wind is justified even if it has no effect on the use of fossil fuels is absurd on inspection.
The Germans have a climate intensity over the last year that is roughly one thousand percent in "percent talk" that of France. They didn't shut their coal plants to go with so called "renewable energy." They embraced coal. They shut their nuclear plants, despite the appeals of major climate scientists. The population of Germany is 83 million, the GDP is about 5 trillion dollars and stagnant because of high electricity prices. (The amount of money squandered on solar and wind in this century approaches that figure.) The population of Uruguay is 3.4 million people.wuth a GDP of around 80 billion, roughly between 1 and 2 % of Germany's in the "pecent talk" antinukes use all the time to obscure the grotesque expensive failure of so called "renewable energy."
If one wishes to claim ethical standing, a good place to start would be to avoid specious, dishonest arguments. If one wants to offer an opinion on a topic of vital importance to the future of this planet, one should know something about what one is deigning to speak.
I've been here for more than 20 years. In that time, I have never met an antinuke who is concerned about fossil fuels unless being called out on their indifference to them compared to their idiotic, and frankly dangerous - deadly actually since fossil fuel waste kills people whenever fossil fuels systems operate normally - attacks on nuclear energy.
I am not impressed by these types, their knowledge base, their education or their ethics, despite whatever disingenuous protestations they make to the contrary about themselves. Their selective attention is popular, perhaps, but it's killing the planet.
I explained the realities of the hydrogen scam here in terms that are referenced and delineated reality as it exists, not in some tiresome delusional fantasy world involving the conditional word "could" that antinukes throw around in their never ending indifference to reality. The word that matters is not "could," it's "is."
From my perspective we could have forestall much of this ongoing tragedy with respect for science and scientists. A simple knowledge of the laws of thermodyamics would be useful, even without requiring any knowledge of mathematics, simply by noting in plain language that "changing the form of energy wastes energy." Instead we've got a huge cabal of "Robert. F. Kennedy" type wannabes who offer insane ruminations on subjects about which they know nothing, babbling for instance with tiresome hydrogen nonsense a condition that could easily dismissed by repeating the aforementioned statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Consider me unimpressed.
= new reply since forum marked as read