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.
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.