• umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

    • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. The original comment said the “worst disaster made a very small she’s of the planet uninhabitable”. Keep in mind this disaster was the result of Soviet incompetence and completely avoidable with standards implemented in the US.

      They’re saying our “worst case scenario” using nuclear power is better than worst case scenario continuing to use fossil fuels.

      Likelihood of worse case scenario using nuclear power is also extremely low. Whereas worst case scenario (billions of people dying) for continuing to use fossil fuels is EXTREMELY HIGH.

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.