Fundamentally, if you can’t listen to people that are wrong on one thing, then there’s nobody you can listen to. Everyone is wrong on one thing at least, everyone is inconsistent. A lot of people advocating for nuclear power still eat meat, while cutting back on meat usage is a substantial factor in combating destruction of wildlife habitat and reducing emissions. Not owning a car, not flying, all things that can effectively be done on a personal level now, instead of or even in parallel to advocating for nuclear power. The belief that technology will save us all and that we don’t have to change our personal lifestyles has in my opinion a strong resemblance to religious beliefs.
Again, I agree with you, so your comment feels like a bit of a strawman.
I'm not arguing in favour of ideological purity. I am merely concerned with pragmatic solutions to the problems that we face. I don't think pressing the power save button on your television makes a meaningful difference. I also don't think banning cars or planes — an idea many environmental activists are enthusiastic about — is realistic.
I think the scale of the problem we face, and the extent of impact necessary to mitigate it, requires investment in nuclear power. Other forms of clean energy are useful, but supplementary.
If Thunberg were wrong about other things, it would be inconsequential. For her to push the wrong message about her core argument though is far less forgivable.
