Nearly all of the complaints from the right about the Green New Deal have been focused on the economic catastrophe the proposal would bring to America if it were ever implemented. That’s the right approach because trying to tackle it from a scientific or even an emotional angle is challenging; most Americans have bought into the notion that man-made climate change is real and will destroy the planet at some point in the future.
But there’s a reality that is rarely explored. Is it even the right approach? Are green energy sources as green as they’re made out to be by leftist politicians and their political scientists in the environmental movement? Some are starting to speak out against the science behind the science and point to an inconvenient truth: green energy isn’t as green as it’s made out to be. What’s worse is that the viability of going green is challenging even if we don’t take the financial repercussions into account.
If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear power seems like the better alternative to coal and natural gas than wind or solar. It is more efficient, much easier to control, and yields a much higher bang for the buck. Moreover, one of the main reasons for opposing nuclear energy – safety – is blown out of proportions. Chernobyl was based on a faulty concept and architecture that made meltdown an inevitability. Fukushima was a real disaster that seemingly could not have been avoided. But in the scope of nuclear safety challenges, these two seem to be the only ones anyone ever mentions.
That’s because nuclear power is much safer than environmental scientists are willing to acknowledge because doing so would go against their agenda.
In this video by John Stossel, he explores the realities of the Green New Deal as well as the benefits of going nuclear over going for expensive renewable energy sources
As the left rushes to beat some arbitrary deadline (the latest in a series of alleged doomsday clocks proclaimed every decade), perhaps we should take a measured, diverse approach. Green, nuclear, and weening off fossil fuels over time makes the most sense.