The 'Green New Deal' Skips Nuclear Energy, Here's Why That Could Be A Mistake
Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of the world’s energy????The clock is ticking to drastically change that in order to prevent a climate catastrophe????and renewable resources may not be able to solve the problem fast enough????So could a controversial energy source hold the answer?
????Nuclear energy has been at the center of public anxiety ever since disasters like Chernobyl and the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan...????...caused by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011??
??But the knee-jerk reaction to shut down reactors in Japan and return to fossil fuels????led to many more deaths than the accident itself...due to the spike in air pollution ????The book-- co-written by Joshua Goldstein, an American University professor????and Staffan Qvist, a Swedish engineer and scientist????… claim our fears of nuclear energy are irrationally large compared to the long-term danger of coal power plants????They say the answer to climate change is ramping up the number of the world’s nuclear reactors????while continuing to utilize renewable energy like hydro, solar, and wind power????Countries like Sweden have already done this and cut their carbon emissions in half????If everyone follows suit, the authors say we could have a fossil-fuel-free world by 2050,????offset greenhouse emissions, and prevent future natural disasters ??
According to a report by Science, a controversial plan by the White House to review the connections between national security and climate change could be led by a former official with the Department of..
The recent flurry of attention given a not-so-new idea, the so-called Green New Deal, has again raised the question of how fast we can act, and how ambitious we can be in reversing climate change and..