Al Gore's rebuttal was that the originator was senile. Long live Al Gore.

the act could say "no nuclear power" to which then yes, repeal the law because relatively speaking, its about the cleanest thing you can get right now with enough bang for your buck. The only problem is the waste and that's just expensive, mostly.

or emission acts which have basically been rendered pointless by rising gas prices solving the problem for you

Describing the effects of the climate bill
Based on the current rate of increase - averaging about 2 ppm per year[9] - greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to reach 400 ppm by 2016, 450 ppm by 2041, and 550 ppm by around 2091. It is because of this that environmental organisations and some political parties criticised the 60% target as being insufficiently ambitious, and why they demanded greater cuts (80%-100%), as mentioned below. The exclusion of emissions from aviation and shipping, combined with forecasts for growth in these areas, also means that the net effect of the bill would actually have only been a 35-50% total cut on 1990 levels by 2050

In other words the bill does just over half of what it sets out to do

But hey maybe all the climate change scientists who wanted 80% in the first place will be wrong and this 30-50% will be enough

Guess well just have to wait 40 years and hope for the best

I think there should be two ways

""It is a textbook exercise in legislative folly, brought about by nothing more than a competitive crossparty 'dash for green'," the manifesto states. "While our major global competitors in the USA, China and India are switching to low-cost fossil fuels, this Act forces us to close perfectly good coal-fired power stations to meet unattainable targets for renewable capacity."....The manifesto adds that the party's focus will be on supporting "a diverse energy market based on coal, nuclear, shale gas, conventional gas, oil, solar and hydro, as well as other renewables when they can be delivered at competitive prices"."

Adaptation and prevention

sounds like that act doesn't account for nuclear

Well nuclear is owned by china in the uk

😄

AHAHHAHHA

fucking china

Yep

Incredible tbh

how did they manage that

Simple, they probably built the plants

China's construction industry is global and its the cornerstone of their economy

To the point where the government will indirectly pay them money to keep their projects going

wouldn't it be hilarious if that was by-product of the EU trade deals being forced on the UK

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-mud-2015474

```Silicon tetra-chloride is not the only byproduct of solar panel production that is harmful to the Utah and Reno Nevada areas we serve. But there are some processes in place to treat these toxic wastes. These processes, however, are expensive and most manufacturers aren’t required to follow them.```

Yep solar has its set of problems

Any sort of energy solution will.

Electric Cars just burn fuel out of sight of the user.

^

Yep

is burning coal better than gas in an ICE car?

And the Lithium Ion is rarely, if ever, disposed of properly.

Mass transport is the real eco way

btw, did you know bananas are radioactive?

For all the talk of our need for better healthcare, nobody seems to take note of all the pharmaceutical waste that winds up in the water.

Depends where

In eu we care more about this then in us

At least that what the journalista make me believe

Could be false

maybe the pharmaceutical waste is why everyone is now crazy 🤔

Remember the gay frogs

😔