The nuclear question, the pros, the cons: video

[Christophe]

Yes that's not wrong ... but the video is still good!

[jlt22]

The car, A million deaths a year worldwide, without counting the cripples who are 4 times more numerous.
Junk food, a million deaths a year
Tobacco, A million deaths a year,
Nuclear, how much on average including Chernobyl, does anyone know.
Some also claim that wind power is dangerous (unhooking of the blades)
The dams also remember Fréjus. The 3 Gorges dam in China made 2 million displaced people happy or not.
The greenhouse effect, some estimate the damage to 300 deaths per year.
In the longer term it will be 1,5 billion displaced, it will not go without war er, as long as they are displaced, they should head straight for fertile and developed regions

The solution remove all this and go back to 1900 in order to save the planet from greenhouse gases, eat only chicken in the pot as meat and, only on Sundays.

All this to tell you that nuclear power is becoming topical at a gallop, as are all large-scale renewable energies. It is not certain that we will be able to meet world demand, despite technological progress which will multiply.
Fossil fuels will stagnate before slowing down quickly, as the number of users increases at full speed.
Today's school children will experience immense problems tomorrow.
Some energy companies do not hesitate to say that it will take more work to earn less, the available energy will be less abundant for everyone.

Have you not noticed that it is the great democracies that pollute the planet the most; worrying, no.

All the politicians in the world will have to change their rifles if they want sustainable development; but will he have the will and the courage.
Does the word development go with sustainable?

[Ahmed]

Does the word development go with sustainable?

Here is a good question!
Here are others: why is it necessary to "develop"?
By the way, before answering the previous question, what would "be developed" mean and what would it be for?
If we answer that, how far do we have to "develop"?

[Christophe]

Development can be sustainable, without a doubt! It has practically been so for man for 20 years! I say almost because pollution (in the broad sense) was not born with the industrial era, it was just "increased tenfold" (euphemism) ... this is directly linked to our comfort of life of 000 / 1 of the world's population who are lucky enough to be rich (we what!).

On the other hand, the development based on capitalism with the current rules (gdp, growth, maximum exploitation: in short the "always more"), I doubt it ... and if we slowed down the search for our "always more" of comfort and always less effort ". Because ultimately "everything" comes from there not?

[jlt22]

Development can be sustainable, without a doubt! It has practically been so for man for 20 years! I say almost because pollution (in the broad sense) was not born with the industrial era, it was just "increased tenfold" (euphemism) ... this is directly linked to our comfort of life of 000 / 1 of the world's population who are lucky enough to be rich (we what!).

On the other hand, the development based on capitalism with the current rules (gdp, growth, maximum exploitation: in short the "always more"), I doubt it ... and if we slowed down the search for our "always more" of comfort and always less effort ". Because ultimately "everything" comes from there not?

There was not to be much pollution during the
20 years before the industrial era, which was largely absorbed naturally
152 million inhabitants per year - 400
700 millions in 1750
6,8 billion today and 9 billion is forecast in 2050.
It is the unrestrained consumption of energy that triggered
the greenhouse gas process.
We have exceeded the purifying capacity of the earth.
Capitalism was born because we consumers always want more, so it is thanks to consumers that we are that it exists and develops.
In North Korea, it does not exist,
Let us all consume as in 1750 and capitalism will stop on its own.
But, are we ready to go back?

[Christophe]

Not much yes, but existing all the same ... and even disastrous in some cases!

Most of the time it was "biodegradable" pollution; we should therefore rather speak of "modification of the environment or of the bio / ecosystem"

There are many examples, some more serious than others, one of the most serious being probably the disappearance of the people of easter island linked to the too strong pressure of this people on their environment ... limited by the size of their island!

[jlt22]

As for Easter Island, are we not limited by our planet Earth and its nonrenewable resources.
If all the inhabitants of the earth wanted to live like us European, and it is their aspiration and their right right, it would be 3 planets earth.

[Christophe]

Well yes we agree ...

I gave this example to simply say that, contrary to a populist idea, pollution and degradation of the environment by man was NOT born with the industrial being and the exploitation of fossil fuels even if they have exploded since!

[Former Oceano]

Man changed the environment as soon as he settled down.
He started to breed, to clear to plant and select species ...

The industrial era has both allowed humanity to explode in numbers and each human being to have a greater impact on the ecosystem. Hence an exponential increase in the impact of man on the planet.

[jlt22]

Hence an exponential increase in the impact of man on the planet.

The exponential increase in the impact on the environment mainly concerns the 1/5 of the population which consumes 4/5 of the planet's resources.
This means that we have to drastically reduce our lifestyle to allow defaforized populations to live with a minimum of comfort.
The reduction of greenhouse gases is therefore not for tomorrow, even by putting the big pot on all renewable energies and .... nuclear.
The acceleration of new techniques cannot compensate for the arrival of new users; this has also been verified for cars.