Very cool, very good proof of your claims.
I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You’re clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn’t even dare to make claims in your presence.
Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]
“Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).
“Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive”. Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.
This is what the oil companies want you to think. The less hope you have the longer they’ll keep making profit. They still receive trillions in public subsidies, it’s criminal.
We may never go back, but if we did cut 100% of emissions tomorrow, it would have a huge impact. These penguins would have a much better chance for the future, for one, and so would plenty of other species.
Have had absolutely zero issues on slrpnk even after the big Reddit migrations.
To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes.
If there’s ever a time when it’s justified, it’s when our very existence is at stake.
Works perfectly on mine.