While Canada claims to be a climate leader, the oil and gas we export to other countries have the potential to produce more emissions in a year than every sector in Canada combined, an independent analysis reveals.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, but It’s still a bad thing to sell something that’s got a negative global effect. This measures that effect.

    We sell a very large amount.

    • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Any time you say nuclear power most people think of Homer Simpson and Fukushima. Canada could be cranking out reactors and fuel for local and international use but it’s ‘too dangerous.’

      • delirious_owl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        It is too dangerous, and we don’t need that risk. Renewables work great.

        • Wilzax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s perceived as dangerous but it’s much safer than any other form of electricity production. It’s just more expensive because we don’t have the construction capacity to just build all the nuclear infrastructure we would need without a serious premium. But once they’re running, nuclear shakes out to be cheaper than undoing the climate damage we caused by saving money with fossil fuels

          • delirious_owl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            You didn’t even address the waste, which is the biggest danger

            • Wilzax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Proven false.

              Waste of nuclear power plants is the most well-regulated specifically because of the anxiety surrounding it. The environmental waste of fossil fuel burning is MORE radioactive than the environmental waste of nuclear power plants. The most potent waste of nuclear plants is contained in a small enough volume to place in concrete casks, submerged in large pools of water (which blocks enough of the radiation to make it lower than background levels), and stored on-site under constant monitoring.

              If you’re worried about waste, you should be championing nuclear power, not shunning it.

              If you’re worried about long-term storage, we have MUCH more time to find a solution for dealing with the contained waste from nuclear power than we do to avert the environmental catastrophe that’s resulting from us continuing to spew carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.

              And if you’re wondering what the biggest danger actually is, it’s the construction of the plants. Which is a uniform risk across all types of power plants, not uniquely high for nuclear.

              • delirious_owl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. But, yes, big nuclear can wrap itself up in a nice package and do a lot of hand waving, just like Big Coal says they have “clean coal”