That's all well and good, but that does not diminish the scope and nature of the problem. The scientific community worldwide is in very substantial agreement that climate change is real and is accelerating. The only question to be concretely answered is precisely how much of it is because of human activity and whether we can actually do anything about it -- and we can leave the wrangling about piddly little "cuts" to carbon emissions out of it because it'll take a wholesale shift to alternate sources than carbon to make any difference.DALederle wrote:Greedy, millionaire politician making a profit from a world wide problem that he is going to solve for us.
And he puts out a movie that wins awards that promote his point of view and the need for his green companies.
Nuclear looks like it's dead again because of all the hype about Fukushima Daiichi and repeated media dredging of the spectres of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. This is sad because nuclear, when compared to most other forms of power generation, is actually amongst the safest technologies going and, aside from the transport-related emissions emits zero carbon into the atmosphere (so long as the backup diesels aren't running). We're kept in fear of it, however, and that fear directly benefits -- you guessed it -- "Big Oil" and the coal interests. It is worth noting that there has not been so much as a single report of any fatality at the Fukushima plant that was radiation-related; the only people to lose their lives there lost them to the tsunami.
I'm of the opinion that if somebody is willing to invest in companies that are working to reduce the consumption of irreplaceable resources -- even if he makes money off it -- is not necessarily pernicious. What is pernicious, however, is other interests stifling development of newer energy sources so they can continue to line their own pockets.
