Collaborating on climate change could lower the political temperature
If the bill does not include significant investment in nuclear power, it should be rejected.
The climate is in such a crisis that we
apparently need to reach "net zero" by 2050. So we need 3 new nuclear plants every 2 days for the next 29 years.
Or the equivalent in wind and sun – which sounds more likely?
If the bill does not include significant investment in nuclear power, it should be rejected.
The climate is in such a crisis that we
apparently need to reach "net zero" by 2050. So we need 3 new nuclear plants every 2 days for the next 29 years.
Or the equivalent in wind and sun – which sounds more likely?