>>9170232Did it cost monies?
>>9170234The difference in their examples is that they're talking about building a bunch of dams in the middle of massive rives and in several locations.
We already have the dams we need, in mountainous areas with large lakes instead of drowning areas downstream and the ecosystem has long since adapted to it.
But let me rephrase then, it's the greenest energy WE have and ever will have.
We live in a climate?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197There's a source on the gas thing btw.
>>9170235Building them maybe, but when they're already built, selling the energy to the EU so they can keep their dirty energy but "lower their emissions" is just retarded.
Especially when it effectively means that instead of making places less polluted you're actually just gonna end up polluting extra in previously clean areas.
Nuclear is good but our government is too incompetent to see it sadly.
>>9170236Beyond disturbing @amazon - please do the right, moral, ethical thing and remove these. Perhaps highlighting books on the Holocaust so that #weneverforget would be a good alternative-or donating to schools so young people learn the real horrors & #neverrepeat
