Greens Are Bad For The Environment

British Greens and NASA’s activist about town Jim Hansen are furious that the country is using increased coal energy.

An inconvenient truth for the Greens is, it’s their fault.

Britain faces a future without enough power, a fact The Economist pointed out.  The nation is faced with rapidly aging generating infrastructure and nothing in the pipe to replace it.  A couple of large nuclear power stations could have solved the problem, but the main reason no new nukes are planned is Green’s rabid opposition to nuclear power.

Greens pretend that wind and solar, their favored solutions, can fill the gap, but as the UK has discovered, wind is an expensive joke unable to provide reliable power, as well as making for dangerous eyesores.  Solar is also an unrealistic option (2nd example at the link).

Which is why the UK is turning to coal power at a remarkable rate.  Coal and natural gas power plants can be built quickly and relatively cheaply enough that they are currently the only option to keep the lights on in the UK.

Too late, some Greens realized what their activism had wrought and dropped their opposition to new nuclear power – but still their hard-core compatriots oppose new plants, delaying essential power the nation needs.

The fact is that there should not be a shortage of electricity anywhere in the 21st century.  The only reason power companies spend time persuading customers to use less of their product is because the green movement has made new coal, gas or nuclear plants almost impossible to build.  Greens are so proud of denying affordable power that they openly brag about it.

The problem is that Greens offer no viable alternatives and when governments are faced with emergency power shortages, as Britain is now, they turn to the cheapest, fastest solution.  Greens might howl about the push to coal, but had they not opposed nuclear the UK would have all the power it needs with almost zero pollution.

Nice work, Greens.