I don’t know why he put that as a literal quote. As far as I remember it was simply about the nazi symbols like the swastikas, which are illegal in Germany for good reason.

Mataulipas! I guess you’re tired of that joke but I like Mexican dark humor and miss a good community here on Lemmy :( saludos!

Psst…just let him, voting for Brainworm Jr. means most likely a vote less for Trump.

Most politicians will play it safe and stick with the most popular opinion for their voter base, or just stay silent.

Sanders, AOC and the protesters helped to turn the tide, which is the reason some politicians speak out now. Those new voices will continue to change public opinion, force others to speak out and apply more pressure.

You rather want this not to happen?
I thought, getting people and politicians to agree that Israel needs to be stopped was the goal?

And why would it be “too late” while Palestinians are still dying?

Here is a copypasta from another user:

*When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.

If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.

Compared to nuclear, renewables are:

• Cheaper
• Lower emissions
• Faster to provision
• Less environmentally damaging
• Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
• Decentralised
• Much, much safer
• Much easier to maintain
• More reliable
• Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands

Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.

Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.

Frequently asked questions:

• But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?

While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.

• Don’t renewables take up too much space?

The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.

• Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?

No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.

• We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.

Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy *

Here is some info about the only construction projects in the US from the last 25 years:

• The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.5 billion leading Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017.

• Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The current cost estimate of A$37.6-41.8 billion is twice the estimate when construction began. Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts. The project is six years behind schedule.

• The Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee began operation in 2016, 43 years after construction began. That is the only power reactor start-up in the US over the past quarter-century. The previous start-up was Watts Bar 1, completed in 1996 after a 23-year construction period.

• In 2021, TVA abandoned the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama, 47 years after construction began and following the expenditure of an estimated A$8.1 billion.

More information

You’re making some strong claims, while using an even stronger language:

• The “race to the button” has begun because of corrupt politicians and “Capitalists”, who sold out the Norwegian people for some “fat paychecks”.

• Germany “dismantled” their electric infrastructure, because of “boomers”, that are afraid of “hot metal in a pool”, generally everyone who is against nuclear is “just afraid of what they don’t understand”.

• Oil companies invest in wind energy, to keep people relying on oil in the future.

• The EU wants to fish Norway dry.

I already said my part about nuclear energy.

That wind energy is an oil company conspiracy to keep people hooked on oil and not a diversification of their portfolio, similar to what Saudi Arabia is doing, I’m not going into much either.

Norway, the EU and GB came to an agreement, that also benefits Norway, some quotes:

This traditional deal between the two parties has been particularly demanding this year, as the quotas traditionally fished by Norwegian vessels are now located in the British zone, outside the territory of the European Union.

Norwegian fishermen can now fish the opportunities Norway has acquired from Greenland, including shrimp, Greenland halibut, and redfish, and in the EU zone, such as roundnose grenadier.

“It is gratifying that we have reached an agreement with the EU and the UK. This means that we have agreed on quotas for important stocks that we manage together in the North Sea. This is crucial for sustainable management,” concluded Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Cecilie Myrseth.

Maybe if you dial your tone down a bit and add some sources to your claims, you could be taken more serious.

Germany didn’t “dismantle” their infrastructure, its mistake was to rely on cheap russian gas and shutting down their PV industry while they were ahead of China.

The unanticipated war increased the prices and while it would have been great to still have the nuclear plants, they were really old already anyways.

Nuclear energy is way too expensive, because it can only exist while being heavily subsidized. On top of that they are a big risk in combination with climate change. You mentioned France, but forgot the fact that they had to shut down their reactors due to drought in 2022 and had to import electricity for the first time in decades. Not really a technology that I would count on for the future, especially considering the long time it takes to build them.

As you can see, shit happens and the idea in Europe is to stick together. I’m glad to be part of this. You sound like you’re angry and want to vote for politicians that don’t “sell you out to Europe”, I can imagine which kind of party that might be, good luck with that.