Massive amounts of resource extraction still occurs in places like the US, Canada, and Australia. The US is the world's largest oil producer now. Canada and the US have huge logging operations, and are huge agricultural exporters. Australia has enormous mining operations. And indeed all three still use and extract coal, and most people rely on internal combustion engines for transportation.
Despite all of this, air quality is relatively high. Water quality is relatively high. Ecological preservation efforts have restored all sorts of habitats and saved species from extinction.
Gina Rinehart has become a billionaire in Australia by owning a massive coal mining operation. A lot of the coal is burned locally, but most is exported to Asia. Asia isn't forced to buy Australian coal. Asian countries could instead put a tax on dirty energy, and encourage cleaner energy. But some combination of reasons keeps that low in their list of priorities.
And even if they unfortunately wish to continue to burn coal, it would be possible to force the use of air scrubbers and purchasing purer grades of coal. But that isn't pursued for the same reasons.
Yes, and as pointed out in the link I shared, air pollution is part of the limited impacts it is applicable to, but points out "it does not apply to impacts like resource use and energy use".
Besides the fact that electricity generation is merely one aspect of GHG emissions (hello agriculture, land use, transportation, etc). The ultimate argument against the "let's not radically change our ways and only retool the engine" view is the following: we have ~120 years of known reserves for the current fission reactors, with a potential 10x multiplier with fast neutron reactors should anybody (other than the russians and the chinese) bother to invest into researching the field. How many more doublings in our economy (and hence energy use) does it take to consume it all ? At a measly (by economists and politicians standards) rate of 2%/year, you get a doubling every 35 years. in 350 years (yeah I know this sounds very far in the light of the current news) we'd have increased our demand by 3 orders of magnitude...
Beyond the fact that electricity-generation is once again only part of our emissions issue, there's about ~450 reactors worldwide and the uranium ore reserves give us around ~120 years of operation on current 3rd (/3+) gen reactors (short of having fast neutron reactors basically). Having 1000 in the US (or rather 900 more or 3 times as many globally) would have brought that deadline closer by the inverse ratio, and we'd likely already have tensions on nuclear fuel sourcing.
Agree with you on the role of government spending though, but there also needs to be a radical paradigm shift in how we view the economy and what needs to happen in each sector (not just within energy in fact).
Yes, sure, we can go mine the bottom of the oceans and extract it by centrifuging ocean waters, that probably would give us marginally more than a doubling of margin.
Point remains: reserves are exhaustible, an exponential consumption may not be desirable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=As%20of%2....
> Aviation contributes only 2% of global air pollution
Whataboutism, one of the identified discourses of climate delay [0]. Besides, the proportion of radiative forcing (what actually matters) caused by aviation is more than twice that [1].
0. It's not Whataboutism, though. I don't point to an entirely different problem and say, what about that. I say, if we want to tackle climate change, we ought to target the most effective and cost efficient reductions in order to get the most results with the least cost. And there I say that aviation is just a small part of the problem, so, say, even entirely dismantling aviation would not solve the problem.
1. Yes, as I said immediately following the part you quoted: > though maybe 5% of global greenhouse effect
From the article linked above: "(...) We call this whataboutism. Actors advancing this discourse often deploy statistics demonstrating their own small contribution to global emissions, or they point to large emitters such as China – “We are a nation that produces 1.8 per cent of global carbon dioxide, so I do not get closing down our aluminium smelters, most of our steel production, and now our refining industry …” "
Either we start giving get out of jail free cards to specific sectors and so on or we agree that everything needs to reduce its emissions by ~8%/year from now on, regardless of their share in total emissions, and of how hard it is technically to decarbonize.
Yes it's slow to build today, though it hasn't always been the case: France once built 56 reactors over 15 years [0].
Yes it's expensive, but once again, this isn't a feature of Nuclear power, but one of the capitalist (or at the very least neoliberal) system it is built into: 60% of the Hinkley point C costs are due to the mode of financing (not 100% public) [1].
The real question is not whether this or that type of electricity generation is better (although it's also an important question), but rather how we can completely redesign our socio-economic system to quickly wean ourselves off of fossil fuels (hint: global logistics are far from electrified), reduce emissions from the agricultural sector (we do need to eat), etc.
