Just a subtoot: If you don't 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 nuclear, you'll find reasons to be against it - facts, climate change and human flourishing be damned.

It is therefore the wrong approach to respond against anti-nuclear arguments with facts. Believe me, I've tried. You can reply to worries about nuclear waste (spent fuel) for example with facts - like it being manageable just fine, or it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless, or it being able to be recycled perfectly fine, or its volume being negligible... If you get a denial of these facts, just stop bothering as people are just being dishonest with you.

I'm also not arguing with people who deny climate change, vaccines, the Earth being a globe (ffs), or whatever crazy batshit stuff people come up with these days. It's just not worth my time. I'll just smile and move along. Being against nuclear is likewise a denial of the science.

What does tend to work (better) is setting an optimistic narrative: industrialised society cannot run on solar and wind alone (this isn't hard arithmetic, it's just not enough, even ignoring other problems inherent with them) and nuclear is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to this problem.

The third world, primarily Africa, is going to explode in energy consumption as they economically develop themselves (at long last) this century and, if we don't want them to burn coal for decades, nuclear energy is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to this problem.

All energy sources have toxic waste streams. Nuclear has the fewest and best managed. It is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the problem of how to minimise our impact on the environment.

That spent fuel I was talking about earlier? It's full of energy still. So much so that it can power 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 for 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴. No more mining needed if we wanted to. Nuclear 'waste' isn't waste at all, it is a 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦.

The degrowth movement has a view that we need to use radically less energy, up to 95% less for the West and 60% less globally. These are numbers degrowthers share. The underlying view, explicit or implicit, is that there are just too many people on this planet. A malthusian view of sinful people. Sometimes this is wrapped up in an anti-capitalist rhetoric that 'infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible'. Catchy slogan, but it doesn't actually align with (capitalist) reality.

Yes, as a communist I strive for the end of capitalism and class society in general. And yes, we'll need to rearrange society by quite a bit. 'Degrow' some sectors, grow others. But for humans to flourish we need loads of clean energy. We need to in fact 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘥𝘦 our energy production as a species, up it by a factor 2 or 3 compared to the 200,000 TWh we consume now. Nuclear can deliver that, for billions of years, for the smallest footprint.

TL;DR, the two takeaways are:

Set the narrative, don't be reactive. The latter will cost you time and energy to combat. With the former people will have to engage with you.

If humanity is to have a future, the future will have to be nuclear.

#Nuclear#NuclearEnergy#Degrowth#ClimateChange#EnergyTransition