HN Explorer

11 comments

[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 54.5 ms ] thread
mrguyorama
"Thought carbon emissions had peaked" and "Carbon emissions have never been higher" are synonyms. What is the editor who made this title smoking?
PraetorianGourd
I think you are missing a bit of nuance in the wording. The long-form would be "Prior to reviewing the latest data, scientists were confident that carbon emissions would not surpass previous levels, and continue a downward trajectory. However, latest data show that emissions are again rising above record levels"
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
systoll
No they aren’t.

They thought they had peaked. IE - they thought the peak was in the past. IE - they thought emissions were higher in the past than they are right now.

[dead] _hypx
NoThisIsMe
It was preventable without nuclear too, so I don't see why it would have made a difference.
ben_w
Nuclear 20+ years ago, before PV was cheaper than basically everything, would have displaced quite a lot of fossil fuels.

While I don't see a long term future for fission, I'm still quite happy with it being rolled out wherever politicians decide to, simply because I see a value in diversity of supply.

Delemono
I assume it wasn't just Chernobyl that is the reason for our current nuclear situation.

Then the question is, what was it.

Based on how little people cared about smog and CO2 I assume it was just never that cheap and easy to do.

dakial1
The same with every other alternative energy source: Oil Companies/Countries lobby.
_hypx
It’s probably that plus anti-nuclear weapon fears.