> Reducing nuclear power in France seems to be one of the worst decisions you could make in a time when the rest of the world has its head in the sand.
When people claim to have goal A but do things that run counter to A, you must conclude that their real goal is not goal A but instead some other goal B.
When environmentalist types rail against nuclear power, they reveal their true preferences. They care more about dismantling technological civilization than they do about reducing emissions. If they really cared about emissions as much as they claim to care, they'd support nuclear power out of necessity. They don't, so it's fair to conclude they have unstated goals.
> When environmentalist types rail against nuclear power, they reveal their true preferences. They care more about dismantling technological civilization than they do about reducing emissions. If they really cared about emissions as much as they claim to care, they'd support nuclear power out of necessity. They don't, so it's fair to conclude they have unstated goals.
There's an alternative explanation: that their "true preferences" and "unstated goals" are against nuclear weapons (and the pollution associated with their use), and nuclear power is seen as an enabler of nuclear weapons. (You also have to keep in mind that greenhouse gases are not the only type of pollution "environmentalist types" are concerned about.)
29 years may seem like a good record, but by the Doomsday Argument[0] we shouldn't necessarily assume that this lull will last more than another 29 years.
Also, I think your choice of time frame is a little strange. It's true that the last US nuclear test was 1992, but North Korea as recently as 2017 tested a hydrogen bomb[1]. I don't know if by "on the planet" you mean "above ground", but the 1992 US test occurred in a tunnel.[2]
Anyway, when the stakes are "billions of people are killed by radiation and famine", I think it's fair to want greater guarantees than "no nuclear detonation in the past 4 years". Similarly, "nuclear weapons haven't been used to kill people in the past 76 years" isn't much more comforting.
When people claim to have goal A but do things that run counter to A, you must conclude that their real goal is not goal A but instead some other goal B.
When environmentalist types rail against nuclear power, they reveal their true preferences. They care more about dismantling technological civilization than they do about reducing emissions. If they really cared about emissions as much as they claim to care, they'd support nuclear power out of necessity. They don't, so it's fair to conclude they have unstated goals.