> And I'm sure that will be of great comfort when civilization ends due to runaway climate change, because this system makes it practically impossible to prioritize the long-term goal of preserving the environment we need to live over short-term profiteering by literally a handful of billionaires due to the severe imbalance of power structures that are intrinsic to capitalism
Not going to happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/climate/emissions-wors...
And you can't blame "capitalism" for Germany ditching nuclear to burn more coal.
Posted Jun 1, 2026 14:57 UTC (Mon) by hholzgra (subscriber, #11737) [Link] (1 responses)
> And you can't blame "capitalism" for Germany ditching nuclear to burn more coal.
The German me is wondering where you got that nonsense from; our use of coal for electricity has gradually been going down for the last two decades at least, from ca. 46% in 2007 to about 23% in 2025; and we are currently aiming to totally phase out coal in the electricity sector by 2038.
Would it have been better from a climate perspective to phase out coal first, and only then nuclear? Probably yes. But there were many other factors at play, too.
BTW; you can't blame capitalism for Germany starting to go nuclear either, overall it was probably one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity we had, with lots of the costs hidden. It was only in the final years, with the plants fully written off already, with maintenance minimized knowing that the plants would be shut down soon and so would never need to pass another re-certification cycle, etc. that nuclear electricity looked cheap when only taking the current costs per kWh into account.
Posted Jun 1, 2026 14:59 UTC (Mon) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link]
We've wandered far off topic here. Far, far off topic. Let's stop here.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。