I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.
When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict. One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects. The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.
How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards? If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.
The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.
[img]
Remind me, what happened in Fukishima again?
Basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the impact of climate change. Or was that your point?
Oh no. Just three meltdowns, a few hydrogen-air explosions and the spread of radioactive material and a 30-40 year clean-up.
That was due to building a cost-cutting reactor in an active earthquake-prone area. It is possible to build a reactor that returns costs put into it, safe and efficient for use, and minimizes nuclear waste. The problem is politicians complaining about short-term tax dollars than long-term prosperity.
