You’re forgetting that my car doesn’t go faster than 150km/h, and even at that speed the battery lasts way shorter than at a comfortable 120km/h🤡

Fuel consumption at 200km/h is almost double compared to 120km/h, so who has the cash anyway. And even if you do, is it worth it? Nah.

And beans. And lentils. And peas.

Also, opting for the burger options doesn’t have to mean eating a huge quantity of them.

Could be worse though

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

I know it’s a cliché, but say this on Reddit and you’ll be downvoted into oblivion. Tried it many times. Criticize meat and seemingly reasonable people suddenly start making the same circular arguments they usually mock.

Whether we treat animals fairly shouldn’t depend on whether they’re friendly or playful towards humans.

Still, every cow looks curious and investigative. And even if they’re skittish, they’re still much more trusting towards humans than we deserve. If the cow understood what was really happening, it would be horrified of the monsters that humans are towards cows.

I agree that it shouldn’t be a matter of being for or against nuclear.

The best mix of renewable energy supply of any country is going to be very context dependent. Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind all perform best when they’re used in the right location. Nuclear energy is much more expensive per Megawatthour than renewable energy sources, but it’s highly predictable.

In addition to the high cost, the construction time of a nuclear power plant tends to be somewhere between 10-20 years. Therefore, it makes sense to find solutions first in grid balancing solutions like mega batteries (for balancing, not long term storage), smart EV chargers, and matching demand better with supply through variable pricing. These are all relatively affordable solutions that would reduce the need for a predictable energy supply like nuclear.

But, if the measures above are not enough or if there are concerns about the feasibility of such measures in a particular context, then analyses might point towards nuclear as a solution as the most cost effective solution.

It’s pointless to make nuclear power a polical issue while we’re rapidly approaching an irreversible climate crisis. We don’t have the luxury to act based on preferences. Policymakers shouldn’t view nuclear power as a taboo, but also shouldn’t opt to construct one simply to attract voters.

Rule 1 of life: be skeptical when someone presents their opinion as facts.

Looking at Western European countries like Germany, the Netherlands and the UK to an extent, the road to net-zero is disrupting. Probably because necessary steps have been delayed until the last moment. Large numbers of refugees have a destabilising effect on democracy as well.

Some steps that are necessary for net-zero are expensive investments (like heat pumps) that are causing conflicts in society. Going ahead with it as well as delaying is sure to be met with very loud resistance. Don’t think that Germany can miss it’s climate goals without some serious protests, perhaps worse than they’ve ever seen.

At the same time, I wonder how well UK households are going to deal with even higher food prices as the percentage of failed harvests increases. There isn’t a lot of buffer space here.

It’s not so much whether rich countries have enough money to deal with climate change, but rather how well democracy will fare when it’s under duress.